Expert claims public transport is no-go for transgender people as woman abused on train

Report abuse, urges Emma Roebuck

Report abuse, urges Emma Roebuck

First published in News by

PUBLIC transport in the region is a no-go for many transgender people and abuse remains an every day occurrence, according to a leading trans-rights activist.

Last month a woman was subjected to ‘transphobic’ abuse while travelling on a train between Durham and London Kings Cross.

Police are appealing for witnesses after four men repeatedly abused the woman on Sunday January 19 before leaving the train in Durham.

North-East trans-rights activist Emma Roebuck warned that levels of hate crime are still rising as she gave an insight into everyday discrimination faced by the transgender population.

She said: “Public transport is a dangerous place. As a transperson going from A to B, you’re at risk and many avoid getting buses or trains as they know they are going to be targeted.

“Abuse can be a daily occurrence and every morning you get up and put on an emotional blanket to protect yourself from what you know to expect when you go out the front door.

“It can be anything from having someone look at you like you’re something on the bottom of their shoe to physical violence.

“You get comments and you become public property, with people thinking they have a right to touch your boobs or ask if you still have your genitals.

“People will say you should be shot and they’ll threaten to beat you up.”

She urged victims of abuse to report their experiences as Durham Constabulary described hate crime as “massively underreported”.

Inspector Colin McGillivray said: “The biggest problem we face is the gap between actual and reported incidents.

“We’re committed to actively investigating incidents of hate crime and dealing positively with offenders but to do this, we need people who have been victims to come forward.”

Ms Roebuck said: “There’s not a lot of trust between the trans and gay communities and the authorities because of how they were treated historically in the days when you could get arrested for kissing a man in the street.

“But you must keep reporting because it is the only way to improve lives and do something about it.”

She added: “There are still three people a week murdered for being transgender. We need to examine how to change minds through rational argument and common sense.”

Anyone with information about the incident onboard the train should contact British Transport Police on 0800 405040.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:53pm Sun 16 Feb 14

NO EINSTEIN says...

Sadly as in the animal world, humans pick on the weak and strange, its nature you can't stop it.

At the end of the day, and this is said without prejudice or any insult meant, it is quite strange to cut thing off you were born with, and add things, and if i'm honest quite worrying that professional people are doing it on the NHS or privately.

It is a form of mutilation that has been made legal !!!!!!! but we live in an odd country now.

Where else could it still be lawful to kill a Scotsman in York if he is carrying a bow and arrow.
Sadly as in the animal world, humans pick on the weak and strange, its nature you can't stop it. At the end of the day, and this is said without prejudice or any insult meant, it is quite strange to cut thing off you were born with, and add things, and if i'm honest quite worrying that professional people are doing it on the NHS or privately. It is a form of mutilation that has been made legal !!!!!!! but we live in an odd country now. Where else could it still be lawful to kill a Scotsman in York if he is carrying a bow and arrow. NO EINSTEIN
  • Score: -2

9:27pm Sun 16 Feb 14

punkrocker says...

3 people a week murdered for being transgender so this article claims. I don't recall seeing 3 transgender people in the whole of last year. exactly how many transgender are there in county durham out of the population of 500,000.
is someone being called horrible names (unpleasant as that is) on a train to London really headline news in this paper.
3 people a week murdered for being transgender so this article claims. I don't recall seeing 3 transgender people in the whole of last year. exactly how many transgender are there in county durham out of the population of 500,000. is someone being called horrible names (unpleasant as that is) on a train to London really headline news in this paper. punkrocker
  • Score: -6

10:47pm Sun 16 Feb 14

roant2013 says...

This article is almost entirely alarmist. A little hysterical even.

Not every transgender person has access to their own transport and sensationalised phrases like "public transport in the region is a no-go for many transgender people" and "Public transport is a dangerous place" could potentially leave many of them housebound and in fear of going anywhere.

As a transsexual person myself, I can say that my own and many trans friends' experiences of using public transport in my own (northern) town and beyond (regularly travelling to London) has been mostly fine. Trains and buses have had their moments, but overall no serious problems in several years.

Certainly, I get the looks myself sometimes and there are dangers. So a transgender person should always be very cautious about any new situation they plan to go into.

But lets get perspective!

Any transgender people reading this article should not be deterred from living their lives to the full on the strength of this article!

Oh, and three murders a week? I assume your "expert" means worldwide because its certainly not in the uk, let alone the north east.
This article is almost entirely alarmist. A little hysterical even. Not every transgender person has access to their own transport and sensationalised phrases like "public transport in the region is a no-go for many transgender people" and "Public transport is a dangerous place" could potentially leave many of them housebound and in fear of going anywhere. As a transsexual person myself, I can say that my own and many trans friends' experiences of using public transport in my own (northern) town and beyond (regularly travelling to London) has been mostly fine. Trains and buses have had their moments, but overall no serious problems in several years. Certainly, I get the looks myself sometimes and there are dangers. So a transgender person should always be very cautious about any new situation they plan to go into. But lets get perspective! Any transgender people reading this article should not be deterred from living their lives to the full on the strength of this article! Oh, and three murders a week? I assume your "expert" means worldwide because its certainly not in the uk, let alone the north east. roant2013
  • Score: 25

10:54pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Voice-of-reality says...

As a white anglo-saxon male I get abused every day - usually financially - by the growing groups of minorities who not only 'spring out of of nowhere' but insist that I should pay for their lifestyles of their propaganda - and yet, I am the person grumbled at for not being accommodating to difference.
As a white anglo-saxon male I get abused every day - usually financially - by the growing groups of minorities who not only 'spring out of of nowhere' but insist that I should pay for their lifestyles of their propaganda - and yet, I am the person grumbled at for not being accommodating to difference. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 11

12:14am Mon 17 Feb 14

Colcat says...

NO EINSTEIN says...
"Sadly as in the animal world, humans pick on the weak and strange, its nature you can't stop it."
Yes it can be stopped if there is the will.

"At the end of the day, and this is said without prejudice or any insult meant, it is quite strange to cut thing off you were born with, and add things, and if I'm honest quite worrying that professional people are doing it on the NHS or privately.

It is a form of mutilation that has been made legal !!!!!!! but we live in an odd country now."
You really do show your ignorance and prejudices! Claiming you aren't meaning to insult people and then go ahead and insult people is not acceptable.

"Where else could it still be lawful to kill a Scotsman in York if he is carrying a bow and arrow."
Nope, afraid that (like the killing Welshmen in Chester) is definitely not lawful.

And Voice-of-reality, whilst your attempted implication that you consider everyone to be equal (at least that is how I'm understanding it) your suggestion that the abuse and treatment of the LGBTG community is comparable to the abuse suffered daily by the average white Anglo-Saxon male is naive and, well, not based in reality. While comments such as "Sadly as in the animal world, humans pick on the weak and strange, its nature you can't stop it" show that too many people still need an education in humanity.
NO EINSTEIN says... "Sadly as in the animal world, humans pick on the weak and strange, its nature you can't stop it." Yes it can be stopped if there is the will. "At the end of the day, and this is said without prejudice or any insult meant, it is quite strange to cut thing off you were born with, and add things, and if I'm honest quite worrying that professional people are doing it on the NHS or privately. It is a form of mutilation that has been made legal !!!!!!! but we live in an odd country now." You really do show your ignorance and prejudices! Claiming you aren't meaning to insult people and then go ahead and insult people is not acceptable. "Where else could it still be lawful to kill a Scotsman in York if he is carrying a bow and arrow." Nope, afraid that (like the killing Welshmen in Chester) is definitely not lawful. And Voice-of-reality, whilst your attempted implication that you consider everyone to be equal (at least that is how I'm understanding it) your suggestion that the abuse and treatment of the LGBTG community is comparable to the abuse suffered daily by the average white Anglo-Saxon male is naive and, well, not based in reality. While comments such as "Sadly as in the animal world, humans pick on the weak and strange, its nature you can't stop it" show that too many people still need an education in humanity. Colcat
  • Score: 0

1:12am Mon 17 Feb 14

Voice-of-reality says...

I do not consider everyone to be equal.
Far from it.
The white heterosexual Anglo-Saxon male is an increasingly maligned subject in this country facing persecution - and woe betide the white straight man who dares to stand up and say it.

Alas the pinko liberals will not be happy until as a society some or all of the following conditions are present
a) we are ruled by some form of mullah - for all references to christianity must be crushed in the interests of equality
b) all people have some form of disability or 'ism' that enables us to all plead for special privileges when in reality people are just different. For instance, I accept that there are dyslexics - there are also, however, people who are just lazy and can't be bothered. There are men and women straight and gay- all else could be viewed as self indulgent fanciful nonsense that could not be sustained were it not for the fact that we live in an economically developed country/ One notes that in countries where there is no welfare state and in which people have to walk for 5 miles a day to get water there seem to be very few people 'trapped inside the body of the opposite sex' (the reason - they have to spend their daily lives fighting to survive)
c) till all men are viewed as 'guilty' until proven otherwise - as shown, for instance, by the bandwagon, money grabbing antics, over the last few weeks with regard to, for instance B. Roache, and DLT.
I do not consider everyone to be equal. Far from it. The white heterosexual Anglo-Saxon male is an increasingly maligned subject in this country facing persecution - and woe betide the white straight man who dares to stand up and say it. Alas the pinko liberals will not be happy until as a society some or all of the following conditions are present a) we are ruled by some form of mullah - for all references to christianity must be crushed in the interests of equality b) all people have some form of disability or 'ism' that enables us to all plead for special privileges when in reality people are just different. For instance, I accept that there are dyslexics - there are also, however, people who are just lazy and can't be bothered. There are men and women straight and gay- all else could be viewed as self indulgent fanciful nonsense that could not be sustained were it not for the fact that we live in an economically developed country/ One notes that in countries where there is no welfare state and in which people have to walk for 5 miles a day to get water there seem to be very few people 'trapped inside the body of the opposite sex' (the reason - they have to spend their daily lives fighting to survive) c) till all men are viewed as 'guilty' until proven otherwise - as shown, for instance, by the bandwagon, money grabbing antics, over the last few weeks with regard to, for instance B. Roache, and DLT. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 10

6:58am Mon 17 Feb 14

latsot says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
I do not consider everyone to be equal.
Far from it.
The white heterosexual Anglo-Saxon male is an increasingly maligned subject in this country facing persecution - and woe betide the white straight man who dares to stand up and say it.

Alas the pinko liberals will not be happy until as a society some or all of the following conditions are present
a) we are ruled by some form of mullah - for all references to christianity must be crushed in the interests of equality
b) all people have some form of disability or 'ism' that enables us to all plead for special privileges when in reality people are just different. For instance, I accept that there are dyslexics - there are also, however, people who are just lazy and can't be bothered. There are men and women straight and gay- all else could be viewed as self indulgent fanciful nonsense that could not be sustained were it not for the fact that we live in an economically developed country/ One notes that in countries where there is no welfare state and in which people have to walk for 5 miles a day to get water there seem to be very few people 'trapped inside the body of the opposite sex' (the reason - they have to spend their daily lives fighting to survive)
c) till all men are viewed as 'guilty' until proven otherwise - as shown, for instance, by the bandwagon, money grabbing antics, over the last few weeks with regard to, for instance B. Roache, and DLT.
@voice-of-reality:

Wow, voice, that is a truly impressive litany of ignorance. As an immensely privileged member of a privileged society, you are not 'increasingly maligned' or 'persecuted'. That feeling isn't persecution, it's your rights to be prejudiced without disapproval being eroded away as society becomes more understanding of people who live in less fortunate circumstances.

Nobody wants to prevent any mention of Christianity. Many of us simply want the country - and the world - to be a secular place, where no religion has a - yes, again - privileged place. What you're seeing is a religion that has traditionally had an unwarrantedly powerful position becoming less powerful as fewer people believe that nonsense and fewer still want it's adherents to control their lives.

How can you possibly know that there are no transgender people in developing countries? Especially when a brief Google search will tell you otherwise. Even if you were right, your categorisation of trans* people as somehow self-indulgent is almost impossibly ignorant. You have an opportunity right now to find out how life is for trans* people - its highs, lows and indifferences - by just spending an hour on the web and bothering to learn. I'm guessing you won't, though.

And to crown all this ignorance, you're an MRA and abuse apologist too. What a fantastic surprise. Everything you've said is a symptom of the same thing: an ostrich reaction to the fact that small parts of your precious unwarranted privilege are slowly fading away and other people's voices are gradually becoming as loud as yours. We get it. Change is scary. We're very sorry for you, cowering under your bed pretending the world is what it isn't.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: I do not consider everyone to be equal. Far from it. The white heterosexual Anglo-Saxon male is an increasingly maligned subject in this country facing persecution - and woe betide the white straight man who dares to stand up and say it. Alas the pinko liberals will not be happy until as a society some or all of the following conditions are present a) we are ruled by some form of mullah - for all references to christianity must be crushed in the interests of equality b) all people have some form of disability or 'ism' that enables us to all plead for special privileges when in reality people are just different. For instance, I accept that there are dyslexics - there are also, however, people who are just lazy and can't be bothered. There are men and women straight and gay- all else could be viewed as self indulgent fanciful nonsense that could not be sustained were it not for the fact that we live in an economically developed country/ One notes that in countries where there is no welfare state and in which people have to walk for 5 miles a day to get water there seem to be very few people 'trapped inside the body of the opposite sex' (the reason - they have to spend their daily lives fighting to survive) c) till all men are viewed as 'guilty' until proven otherwise - as shown, for instance, by the bandwagon, money grabbing antics, over the last few weeks with regard to, for instance B. Roache, and DLT.[/p][/quote]@voice-of-reality: Wow, voice, that is a truly impressive litany of ignorance. As an immensely privileged member of a privileged society, you are not 'increasingly maligned' or 'persecuted'. That feeling isn't persecution, it's your rights to be prejudiced without disapproval being eroded away as society becomes more understanding of people who live in less fortunate circumstances. Nobody wants to prevent any mention of Christianity. Many of us simply want the country - and the world - to be a secular place, where no religion has a - yes, again - privileged place. What you're seeing is a religion that has traditionally had an unwarrantedly powerful position becoming less powerful as fewer people believe that nonsense and fewer still want it's adherents to control their lives. How can you possibly know that there are no transgender people in developing countries? Especially when a brief Google search will tell you otherwise. Even if you were right, your categorisation of trans* people as somehow self-indulgent is almost impossibly ignorant. You have an opportunity right now to find out how life is for trans* people - its highs, lows and indifferences - by just spending an hour on the web and bothering to learn. I'm guessing you won't, though. And to crown all this ignorance, you're an MRA and abuse apologist too. What a fantastic surprise. Everything you've said is a symptom of the same thing: an ostrich reaction to the fact that small parts of your precious unwarranted privilege are slowly fading away and other people's voices are gradually becoming as loud as yours. We get it. Change is scary. We're very sorry for you, cowering under your bed pretending the world is what it isn't. latsot
  • Score: 1

9:03am Mon 17 Feb 14

Colcat says...

Very eloquently put, latsot.
Very eloquently put, latsot. Colcat
  • Score: -3

9:58am Mon 17 Feb 14

BMD says...

I have met a transvestite whom is Andy during the day and Sandy during the night!
He / She speaks with a rough Geordie accent and is a brilliant laugh and I am more than sure nobody would call him school yard names.

It appears that everyone with a budgie is jumping on this hate crime band wagon.
I have met a transvestite whom is Andy during the day and Sandy during the night! He / She speaks with a rough Geordie accent and is a brilliant laugh and I am more than sure nobody would call him school yard names. It appears that everyone with a budgie is jumping on this hate crime band wagon. BMD
  • Score: 6

10:10am Mon 17 Feb 14

behonest says...

Surely the quickest and easiest way to stop this from happening on our rail network is to award all rail franchises to the company set up to handle all people equally, regarless of gender, sexuality, etc.

Trans pennine express.
Surely the quickest and easiest way to stop this from happening on our rail network is to award all rail franchises to the company set up to handle all people equally, regarless of gender, sexuality, etc. Trans pennine express. behonest
  • Score: 11

12:14pm Mon 17 Feb 14

latsot says...

BMD wrote:
I have met a transvestite whom is Andy during the day and Sandy during the night!
He / She speaks with a rough Geordie accent and is a brilliant laugh and I am more than sure nobody would call him school yard names.

It appears that everyone with a budgie is jumping on this hate crime band wagon.
You've met one trans person therefore abuse of trans people does not exist? What an extraordinarily poor argument from personal anecdote. This is a fallacy, as I'm sure you know.

There's no bandwagon, there's a growing number of people standing up to and reporting hatred and abuse. That is a good thing: surely the only people who would claim otherwise are the haters and abusers.

I have friends who would definitely fight for the rights of trans people, but who still openly laugh at trans people who are obviously presenting as something other than their assigned gender. These friends are people who are more liberal and enlightened than most, but they still make the world a little more difficult for those who don't fit into established norms. They laugh and point at people they see as men in dresses. They smirk at people who are in the process of transition or are post transition because they can 'tell' that they have changed or are changing gender. They look down on the decisions of trans people to present in certain ways because it's relatively unusual rather than respecting those decisions and the people who made them.

There's an easy way to deal with this. If someone tells you they are a woman, treat them as a woman. If someone tells you they are a man, don't argue. If a person identifies as neither, don't make assumptions. It's what *they* feel that counts, not what you think.

If you're confused, do some research: have a look on the web or actually talk to a trans person. Trans people understand the confusion. In my experience, they want to help people understand. And there's lots of stuff on the web about this. So there's no excuse to not educate yourself.

But don't you *dare* use the 'some of my best friends are....' gambit to to justify ignorance and intolerance. Even if you are tolerant, you're fueling the intolerance of others.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: I have met a transvestite whom is Andy during the day and Sandy during the night! He / She speaks with a rough Geordie accent and is a brilliant laugh and I am more than sure nobody would call him school yard names. It appears that everyone with a budgie is jumping on this hate crime band wagon.[/p][/quote]You've met one trans person therefore abuse of trans people does not exist? What an extraordinarily poor argument from personal anecdote. This is a fallacy, as I'm sure you know. There's no bandwagon, there's a growing number of people standing up to and reporting hatred and abuse. That is a good thing: surely the only people who would claim otherwise are the haters and abusers. I have friends who would definitely fight for the rights of trans people, but who still openly laugh at trans people who are obviously presenting as something other than their assigned gender. These friends are people who are more liberal and enlightened than most, but they still make the world a little more difficult for those who don't fit into established norms. They laugh and point at people they see as men in dresses. They smirk at people who are in the process of transition or are post transition because they can 'tell' that they have changed or are changing gender. They look down on the decisions of trans people to present in certain ways because it's relatively unusual rather than respecting those decisions and the people who made them. There's an easy way to deal with this. If someone tells you they are a woman, treat them as a woman. If someone tells you they are a man, don't argue. If a person identifies as neither, don't make assumptions. It's what *they* feel that counts, not what you think. If you're confused, do some research: have a look on the web or actually talk to a trans person. Trans people understand the confusion. In my experience, they want to help people understand. And there's lots of stuff on the web about this. So there's no excuse to not educate yourself. But don't you *dare* use the 'some of my best friends are....' gambit to to justify ignorance and intolerance. Even if you are tolerant, you're fueling the intolerance of others. latsot
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Apocalypse Later says...

Shouldn't there be another stripe on the flag, or are they assuming indigo and blue look the same?
Shouldn't there be another stripe on the flag, or are they assuming indigo and blue look the same? Apocalypse Later
  • Score: 4

12:41pm Mon 17 Feb 14

BMD says...

latsot wrote:
BMD wrote: I have met a transvestite whom is Andy during the day and Sandy during the night! He / She speaks with a rough Geordie accent and is a brilliant laugh and I am more than sure nobody would call him school yard names. It appears that everyone with a budgie is jumping on this hate crime band wagon.
You've met one trans person therefore abuse of trans people does not exist? What an extraordinarily poor argument from personal anecdote. This is a fallacy, as I'm sure you know. There's no bandwagon, there's a growing number of people standing up to and reporting hatred and abuse. That is a good thing: surely the only people who would claim otherwise are the haters and abusers. I have friends who would definitely fight for the rights of trans people, but who still openly laugh at trans people who are obviously presenting as something other than their assigned gender. These friends are people who are more liberal and enlightened than most, but they still make the world a little more difficult for those who don't fit into established norms. They laugh and point at people they see as men in dresses. They smirk at people who are in the process of transition or are post transition because they can 'tell' that they have changed or are changing gender. They look down on the decisions of trans people to present in certain ways because it's relatively unusual rather than respecting those decisions and the people who made them. There's an easy way to deal with this. If someone tells you they are a woman, treat them as a woman. If someone tells you they are a man, don't argue. If a person identifies as neither, don't make assumptions. It's what *they* feel that counts, not what you think. If you're confused, do some research: have a look on the web or actually talk to a trans person. Trans people understand the confusion. In my experience, they want to help people understand. And there's lots of stuff on the web about this. So there's no excuse to not educate yourself. But don't you *dare* use the 'some of my best friends are....' gambit to to justify ignorance and intolerance. Even if you are tolerant, you're fueling the intolerance of others.
Have you been sniffing your nail varnish remover?
[quote][p][bold]latsot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: I have met a transvestite whom is Andy during the day and Sandy during the night! He / She speaks with a rough Geordie accent and is a brilliant laugh and I am more than sure nobody would call him school yard names. It appears that everyone with a budgie is jumping on this hate crime band wagon.[/p][/quote]You've met one trans person therefore abuse of trans people does not exist? What an extraordinarily poor argument from personal anecdote. This is a fallacy, as I'm sure you know. There's no bandwagon, there's a growing number of people standing up to and reporting hatred and abuse. That is a good thing: surely the only people who would claim otherwise are the haters and abusers. I have friends who would definitely fight for the rights of trans people, but who still openly laugh at trans people who are obviously presenting as something other than their assigned gender. These friends are people who are more liberal and enlightened than most, but they still make the world a little more difficult for those who don't fit into established norms. They laugh and point at people they see as men in dresses. They smirk at people who are in the process of transition or are post transition because they can 'tell' that they have changed or are changing gender. They look down on the decisions of trans people to present in certain ways because it's relatively unusual rather than respecting those decisions and the people who made them. There's an easy way to deal with this. If someone tells you they are a woman, treat them as a woman. If someone tells you they are a man, don't argue. If a person identifies as neither, don't make assumptions. It's what *they* feel that counts, not what you think. If you're confused, do some research: have a look on the web or actually talk to a trans person. Trans people understand the confusion. In my experience, they want to help people understand. And there's lots of stuff on the web about this. So there's no excuse to not educate yourself. But don't you *dare* use the 'some of my best friends are....' gambit to to justify ignorance and intolerance. Even if you are tolerant, you're fueling the intolerance of others.[/p][/quote]Have you been sniffing your nail varnish remover? BMD
  • Score: -1

12:59pm Mon 17 Feb 14

latsot says...

@BMD: "Have you been sniffing your nail varnish remover?"

I don't own any, but thanks for proving my point. You had a choice. You could have spent a few minutes educating yourself or you could have made a stupid, gender-based insult to make yourself better about being ignorant.

I hope you're happy with your choice.

But you *can* actually make better choices in the future. You can choose to learn. You can choose not to be deliberately obtuse. You can choose to make the world a better rather than a worse place.

Or you can choose to use idiotic, uninformed, misunderstood gender-based insults rather than engaging in discussion. It really is your choice: to help make the world better for everyone, or to make it better for only yourself and people like you.
@BMD: "Have you been sniffing your nail varnish remover?" I don't own any, but thanks for proving my point. You had a choice. You could have spent a few minutes educating yourself or you could have made a stupid, gender-based insult to make yourself better about being ignorant. I hope you're happy with your choice. But you *can* actually make better choices in the future. You can choose to learn. You can choose not to be deliberately obtuse. You can choose to make the world a better rather than a worse place. Or you can choose to use idiotic, uninformed, misunderstood gender-based insults rather than engaging in discussion. It really is your choice: to help make the world better for everyone, or to make it better for only yourself and people like you. latsot
  • Score: 6

2:20pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Voice-of-reality says...

To take issue with a number of points you raised. I would agree that we are all members of a privileged society – one that should, accordingly, be more interested in empowering the lives of the ‘have nots’ than naval gazing over quality of life issues. I would therefore suggest as you do – that society should be more interested in those who live in less fortunate circumstances. Unfortunately, with limited resources of time and money that actually means that your own ‘quality’ issues should be relegated in importance in preference to addressing the concerns of those who really do live in less fortunate circumstances – the abject poor of the third world – not Whilst you attempt to paint ‘my persecution’ as a form of increasingly questioned prejudice it must be remembered that all those who seek additional rights and opportunities for their ‘pet projects’ must operate within the existing political vortex and cultural norms.
The comment regarding Christianity was part of a wider comment. Secularism, like atheism, is a ‘belief’ and there is a belief (whether legitimate or not) in much of the population that ‘levelling up’ of non-Christian traditions and attitudes in this country is carried out at the expense of Christian tradition. Whether such concerns are always grounded in reality – and I would argue that they often are – is a moot point. It is the consequences of such perceptions that can be most dangerous.
Of course there are transgender people in developing countries. I merely suggest that their more pressing concern is getting food and that the concerns of the developed world in making the life of the less fortunate continent more tolerable would be better employed ensuring adequate water, drainage, and food, than worrying about sexual orientation. I also tend not to use Google for serious research.
I am not an MRA and never have been, though I would argue that the development of a society in which both parents have to work in order to afford a mortgage has weakened the fabric of society. With regard to your initial comments, I am not an abuse apologist – but I would argue that those who have besmirched people such as DLT and Roache , should be named and shamed . I would also argue that those who ‘cry rape’ should be named and shamed –thereby attaining a form of equality with the acquitted male who is (though blameless) forever publically tarnished.
And finally… with regard to your comments relating to BMD – I agree, if a person says they are a woman they are a woman. If they say they are a man they are a man – and if they say nothing… then, in the absence of other evidence they should be ‘sexed’ according to the genitalia with which they born.
To take issue with a number of points you raised. I would agree that we are all members of a privileged society – one that should, accordingly, be more interested in empowering the lives of the ‘have nots’ than naval gazing over quality of life issues. I would therefore suggest as you do – that society should be more interested in those who live in less fortunate circumstances. Unfortunately, with limited resources of time and money that actually means that your own ‘quality’ issues should be relegated in importance in preference to addressing the concerns of those who really do live in less fortunate circumstances – the abject poor of the third world – not Whilst you attempt to paint ‘my persecution’ as a form of increasingly questioned prejudice it must be remembered that all those who seek additional rights and opportunities for their ‘pet projects’ must operate within the existing political vortex and cultural norms. The comment regarding Christianity was part of a wider comment. Secularism, like atheism, is a ‘belief’ and there is a belief (whether legitimate or not) in much of the population that ‘levelling up’ of non-Christian traditions and attitudes in this country is carried out at the expense of Christian tradition. Whether such concerns are always grounded in reality – and I would argue that they often are – is a moot point. It is the consequences of such perceptions that can be most dangerous. Of course there are transgender people in developing countries. I merely suggest that their more pressing concern is getting food and that the concerns of the developed world in making the life of the less fortunate continent more tolerable would be better employed ensuring adequate water, drainage, and food, than worrying about sexual orientation. I also tend not to use Google for serious research. I am not an MRA and never have been, though I would argue that the development of a society in which both parents have to work in order to afford a mortgage has weakened the fabric of society. With regard to your initial comments, I am not an abuse apologist – but I would argue that those who have besmirched people such as DLT and Roache , should be named and shamed . I would also argue that those who ‘cry rape’ should be named and shamed –thereby attaining a form of equality with the acquitted male who is (though blameless) forever publically tarnished. And finally… with regard to your comments relating to BMD – I agree, if a person says they are a woman they are a woman. If they say they are a man they are a man – and if they say nothing… then, in the absence of other evidence they should be ‘sexed’ according to the genitalia with which they born. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 15

3:54pm Mon 17 Feb 14

latsot says...

@voice-of-reality:

"one that should, accordingly, be more interested in empowering the lives of the ‘have nots’ than naval gazing over quality of life issues"

*Should*? How about a society that *is*? Who is the navel-gazer here? You are the one interested in applying arbitrary rules about what constitutes quality of life over survival as though that's a universal distinction. You don't get to decide what those arbitrary rules are. You don't get to enforce them. You don't get to complain that the world doesn't conform to your arbitrary rules.

Rules can't suffer, people can. Are some things more urgent than others? Of course. Does urgency necessarily and always determine importance? Absolutely not. Urgency doesn't even necessarily determine priority because there's a whole bunch of other things to consider. You don't consider any of those things.

How about an example: what resources are necessary to treat people who have a different sort of sexuality or gender identity to you as equals? I think the answer is "absolutely none at all." If I'm mistaken. please educate me.

You regard certain rights as "additional". Additional to what? You mean additional to the human rights everyone else enjoys. You assume that the rights of trans* people are somehow different from their human rights when in fact they are the same. That's the point. I don't think anyone wants additional rights, they want exactly the same rights as you. At the moment, inequality exists in the law and in society and that's what people are complaining about. Good for them.

"The comment regarding Christianity was part of a wider comment. Secularism, like atheism, is a ‘belief’ and there is a belief"

Not at all. Secularism is a principle. Should a particular religion determine what we do? Should it determine who puts what where in the bedroom? Should it determine who can adopt or how people are educated? Should it determine whether people are allowed abortions or contraception or allowed to walk around the place by themselves without being draped in a sack? The principle of secularism says that the state shouldn't enforce crazy religious ideas and that it shouldn't defend them, either. If "Christian traditions" mean telling everyone else how to behave, we can probably do without them. First, if those traditions are really so good, why do people need to be forced to adhere to them? Second, whoah, aren't we back to the question of rights, which you seem to think inviolate?

I find your assertion that you use Google only for 'serious' research, by which you mean 'research you don't want to do' hilarious. It's only research, isn't it, if the point is to learn something. You have no such intent.

You certainly are an abuse apologist. You have argued that the victims are to blame. It's not actually my job to educate you about this, but here goes:

Sexual abuse happens a lot. It is overwhelmingly more likely that - in a case where sexual abuse is claimed - that it happened rather than it did not.

People who are sexually abused don't always report it. Is this some kind of surprise?

People don't tend to believe survivors of sexual assault. This is because people like you pretend that standards of evidence in real life are the same as those in court.

Tell me, do you think that Jimmy Savile didn't abuse children?
@voice-of-reality: "one [society] that should, accordingly, be more interested in empowering the lives of the ‘have nots’ than naval gazing over quality of life issues" *Should*? How about a society that *is*? Who is the navel-gazer here? You are the one interested in applying arbitrary rules about what constitutes quality of life over survival as though that's a universal distinction. You don't get to decide what those arbitrary rules are. You don't get to enforce them. You don't get to complain that the world doesn't conform to your arbitrary rules. Rules can't suffer, people can. Are some things more urgent than others? Of course. Does urgency necessarily and always determine importance? Absolutely not. Urgency doesn't even necessarily determine priority because there's a whole bunch of other things to consider. You don't consider any of those things. How about an example: what resources are necessary to treat people who have a different sort of sexuality or gender identity to you as equals? I think the answer is "absolutely none at all." If I'm mistaken. please educate me. You regard certain rights as "additional". Additional to what? You mean additional to the human rights everyone else enjoys. You assume that the rights of trans* people are somehow different from their human rights when in fact they are the same. That's the point. I don't think anyone wants additional rights, they want exactly the same rights as you. At the moment, inequality exists in the law and in society and that's what people are complaining about. Good for them. "The comment regarding Christianity was part of a wider comment. Secularism, like atheism, is a ‘belief’ and there is a belief" Not at all. Secularism is a principle. Should a particular religion determine what we do? Should it determine who puts what where in the bedroom? Should it determine who can adopt or how people are educated? Should it determine whether people are allowed abortions or contraception or allowed to walk around the place by themselves without being draped in a sack? The principle of secularism says that the state shouldn't enforce crazy religious ideas and that it shouldn't defend them, either. If "Christian traditions" mean telling everyone else how to behave, we can probably do without them. First, if those traditions are really so good, why do people need to be forced to adhere to them? Second, whoah, aren't we back to the question of rights, which you seem to think inviolate? I find your assertion that you use Google only for 'serious' research, by which you mean 'research you don't want to do' hilarious. It's only research, isn't it, if the point is to learn something. You have no such intent. You certainly are an abuse apologist. You have argued that the victims are to blame. It's not actually my job to educate you about this, but here goes: Sexual abuse happens a lot. It is overwhelmingly more likely that - in a case where sexual abuse is claimed - that it happened rather than it did not. People who are sexually abused don't always report it. Is this some kind of surprise? People don't tend to believe survivors of sexual assault. This is because people like you pretend that standards of evidence in real life are the same as those in court. Tell me, do you think that Jimmy Savile didn't abuse children? latsot
  • Score: -13

6:25pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Voice-of-reality says...

I shall comment on the other substantives later. However, two quick points. First, I have not stated that victims are to blame - I have, however, stated that where the jury finds the victim to be the innocent but accused male, that the female should be named and shamed. We name and shame the guilty males so that others can be warned.... equality would suggest that it should apply both ways. Second, I can categorically state that Mr Saville has not been convicted of any crime.
I shall comment on the other substantives later. However, two quick points. First, I have not stated that victims are to blame - I have, however, stated that where the jury finds the victim to be the innocent but accused male, that the female should be named and shamed. We name and shame the guilty males so that others can be warned.... equality would suggest that it should apply both ways. Second, I can categorically state that Mr Saville has not been convicted of any crime. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 13

7:33pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Jackaranda says...

"Last month a woman was subjected to ‘transphobic’ abuse while travelling on a train between Durham and London Kings Cross."

And here's me thinking 'drag queens' were supposed to have fun poked at them!! Pun intended.
"Last month a woman was subjected to ‘transphobic’ abuse while travelling on a train between Durham and London Kings Cross." And here's me thinking 'drag queens' were supposed to have fun poked at them!! Pun intended. Jackaranda
  • Score: -3

5:58am Tue 18 Feb 14

johnny_p says...

I frankly don't care if someone is gay, straight or transgender. Nor do I care if they are black, white or any shade in between. I like people if I like them, and I dislike people if I dislike them. There are bullies around wherever you are, and I'm a little perplexed as to why they might congregate on public transport. Is this article a little sensationalist or is it just my me?!

I've been called names in public places, and teased because of my disability but it is best to just ignore it. The vast major it of people are kind and thoughtful, and just as many wrapped up in their own problems to notice others.

And "three transgender people are killed every day"? I don't think I've seen that many transgender people in my life!
I frankly don't care if someone is gay, straight or transgender. Nor do I care if they are black, white or any shade in between. I like people if I like them, and I dislike people if I dislike them. There are bullies around wherever you are, and I'm a little perplexed as to why they might congregate on public transport. Is this article a little sensationalist or is it just my me?! I've been called names in public places, and teased because of my disability but it is best to just ignore it. The vast major it of people are kind and thoughtful, and just as many wrapped up in their own problems to notice others. And "three transgender people are killed every day"? I don't think I've seen that many transgender people in my life! johnny_p
  • Score: 9

8:08am Tue 18 Feb 14

BMD says...

Transgender or transvestites change their image to extend their own personal persona and dress to what they feel is attractive to themselves and other people. Therefore when any negative comments are thrown in their direction, the toy's come out of the pram.

To my original comment regarding "Andy during the Day and Sandy at Night. Sandy turns out to be the biggest **** with the nastiest banter, which all heterosexual patrons take with good humour. But it is a shame that a lot of these small interest groups all like to think they are special and unique, this story has been blown out of all proportion and in itself has made the topic laughable.

Remember the same 4 men whom allegedly abused the victim are probably paying their tax towards her next NHS operation.
Transgender or transvestites change their image to extend their own personal persona and dress to what they feel is attractive to themselves and other people. Therefore when any negative comments are thrown in their direction, the toy's come out of the pram. To my original comment regarding "Andy during the Day and Sandy at Night. Sandy turns out to be the biggest **** with the nastiest banter, which all heterosexual patrons take with good humour. But it is a shame that a lot of these small interest groups all like to think they are special and unique, this story has been blown out of all proportion and in itself has made the topic laughable. Remember the same 4 men whom allegedly abused the victim are probably paying their tax towards her next NHS operation. BMD
  • Score: 0

10:32am Tue 18 Feb 14

MartinMo says...

There are too many grey areas and toes to be stepped on from some of the topics arising here.

We are a multiculturable nation whom pride themselves on having freedom of choice and freedom of speech (to a level). People fear what they do not understand and natural defensive behaviour kicks in, this shows itself in many forms. No one whole heartidly excepts the strange, even parents whilst being supportive will still ask themselves, why.

To quote voice-of-reality:
"As a white anglo-saxon male I get abused every day - usually financially - by the growing groups of minorities who not only 'spring out of of nowhere' but insist that I should pay for their lifestyles of their propaganda - and yet, I am the person grumbled at for not being accommodating to difference."

Whilst not wholly true in all he says it is not far from the truth, as a growing nation of multicultural societies the able bodied white male is becoming the minority and the victem of what is loosely classed as reverse discrimination. This is not blatantly obvious but happens, One such example can be found in the employment field. An employer can be accused of racism or discrimination if he does not hire a % of people from specific ethnic backgrounds, women and those suffering from varied disabilities, the days off hiring the best person for the is out of the window if he does not meet his quota.
There are too many grey areas and toes to be stepped on from some of the topics arising here. We are a multiculturable nation whom pride themselves on having freedom of choice and freedom of speech (to a level). People fear what they do not understand and natural defensive behaviour kicks in, this shows itself in many forms. No one whole heartidly excepts the strange, even parents whilst being supportive will still ask themselves, why. To quote voice-of-reality: "As a white anglo-saxon male I get abused every day - usually financially - by the growing groups of minorities who not only 'spring out of of nowhere' but insist that I should pay for their lifestyles of their propaganda - and yet, I am the person grumbled at for not being accommodating to difference." Whilst not wholly true in all he says it is not far from the truth, as a growing nation of multicultural societies the able bodied white male is becoming the minority and the victem of what is loosely classed as reverse discrimination. This is not blatantly obvious but happens, One such example can be found in the employment field. An employer can be accused of racism or discrimination if he does not hire a % of people from specific ethnic backgrounds, women and those suffering from varied disabilities, the days off hiring the best person for the is out of the window if he does not meet his quota. MartinMo
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Jackaranda says...

BMD says...

"Remember the same 4 men whom allegedly abused the victim are probably paying their tax towards her next NHS operation."

Well said Sir, or could it be Madam ;-)
BMD says... "Remember the same 4 men whom allegedly abused the victim are probably paying their tax towards her next NHS operation." Well said Sir, or could it be Madam ;-) Jackaranda
  • Score: -1

2:33pm Tue 18 Feb 14

MartinMo says...

latsot.......althoug
h what you say makes sense it is also not in fact the total truth. "Sexual abuse happens a lot. It is overwhelmingly more likely that - in a case where sexual abuse is claimed - that it happened rather than it did not."

There has been claims of sexual abuse/harrassment which have been unjust in which the accused actually being a victem of a hate crime. Any one found guilty of sex crimes should be punished severely, however to be found guilty surely there need to be evidence supporting this. Now here lays the issue, this evidence does not exist and so people are being convicted on hear say, rightly or wrongly.

As for Jimmy S, being accused without evidence is not proof of guilt or innocents. He has been branded a monster on nothing but here say and what has it achieved, nothing but the punishment of his family. They are the ones suffering due to the accussations.

If my daughter came home claiming her teacher had sexually harrassed her I would seek justice, personally I would want to bury him but then I would be wrong. However his teaching career, family life would be destroyed, his life ruined. The question is, what if all she said was a lie but she was never found out.
latsot.......althoug h what you say makes sense it is also not in fact the total truth. "Sexual abuse happens a lot. It is overwhelmingly more likely that - in a case where sexual abuse is claimed - that it happened rather than it did not." There has been claims of sexual abuse/harrassment which have been unjust in which the accused actually being a victem of a hate crime. Any one found guilty of sex crimes should be punished severely, however to be found guilty surely there need to be evidence supporting this. Now here lays the issue, this evidence does not exist and so people are being convicted on hear say, rightly or wrongly. As for Jimmy S, being accused without evidence is not proof of guilt or innocents. He has been branded a monster on nothing but here say and what has it achieved, nothing but the punishment of his family. They are the ones suffering due to the accussations. If my daughter came home claiming her teacher had sexually harrassed her I would seek justice, personally I would want to bury him but then I would be wrong. However his teaching career, family life would be destroyed, his life ruined. The question is, what if all she said was a lie but she was never found out. MartinMo
  • Score: 2

2:31am Wed 19 Feb 14

latsot says...

This is a story about something that actually happened. A transgender person was abused. There's no excuse for anyone to abuse anyone else. Isn't that what we're talking about? Don't do that. Don't abuse transgender people and don't be an apologist for abuse.

But the tedious apologists for bad behavior pretty much prove the point: blaming the victim and making it seem as though the only standard of belief is that of a court of law is infantile. We employ other standards of evidence all the time and you know it. You only insist on ridiculously strict standards when it suits you.

It's overwhelmingly more likely that an allegation of abuse is true than is the denial. That's not to say - as you tediously claim - that false accusations don't happen. Plainly they do.

But what you believe? The likely or the unlikely? Do you really think it's 50/50 when millions of people get raped every year and a few dozen get falsely accused of rape?

But that's not all that matters, is it? It's about the damage to reputation that allegations can do, right? Well whose reputation? The reputation of a celebrity is somehow more important than that of someone who accuses a celebrity? Is that right?

To suggest that Jimmy Savile might not have abused anyone because he wasn't convicted after his death, which made conviction impossible, is extraordinary. It's hard to imagine a worse argument. Ask yourself what is the most likely: that there are 1300 credible charges against an obviously creepy person or that 1300 people are lying for no reason.

We need the certainly of courts to convict people of crimes. We don't need that to to decide that people might be guilty of stuff. A case in point is Woody Allen. I don't know whether he sexually abused Dylan, but he had a shitload of prior. It's not unreasonable, based on that, to conclude that he probably did.

There are different standards of evidence needed in different situations. You're pretending that isn't true.
This is a story about something that actually happened. A transgender person was abused. There's no excuse for anyone to abuse anyone else. Isn't that what we're talking about? Don't do that. Don't abuse transgender people and don't be an apologist for abuse. But the tedious apologists for bad behavior pretty much prove the point: blaming the victim and making it seem as though the only standard of belief is that of a court of law is infantile. We employ other standards of evidence all the time and you know it. You only insist on ridiculously strict standards when it suits you. It's overwhelmingly more likely that an allegation of abuse is true than is the denial. That's not to say - as you tediously claim - that false accusations don't happen. Plainly they do. But what you believe? The likely or the unlikely? Do you really think it's 50/50 when millions of people get raped every year and a few dozen get falsely accused of rape? But that's not all that matters, is it? It's about the damage to reputation that allegations can do, right? Well whose reputation? The reputation of a celebrity is somehow more important than that of someone who accuses a celebrity? Is that right? To suggest that Jimmy Savile might not have abused anyone because he wasn't convicted after his death, which made conviction impossible, is extraordinary. It's hard to imagine a worse argument. Ask yourself what is the most likely: that there are 1300 credible charges against an obviously creepy person or that 1300 people are lying for no reason. We need the certainly of courts to convict people of crimes. We don't need that to to decide that people might be guilty of stuff. A case in point is Woody Allen. I don't know whether he sexually abused Dylan, but he had a shitload of prior. It's not unreasonable, based on that, to conclude that he probably did. There are different standards of evidence needed in different situations. You're pretending that isn't true. latsot
  • Score: 0

9:37am Wed 19 Feb 14

MartinMo says...

You seen to have gone on a full blown rant, you can't say someone is guilty because they look it;

Quote: Ask yourself what is the most likely: that there are 1300 credible charges against an obviously creepy person or that 1300 people are lying for no reason.
At no point did I say JS was innocent of all accusations, nor did I say he was guilty of any. The problem is lifes can be ruined from the accusation alone without any proof and it is because of the very mentality you display.....it is more than likely they did do it because they said they did........if I said that during a military inspection a member of royalty cupped and groped my groinal region and left me feeling sexually abused.....I am sure the papers and magazines would love a story like that and it would become world wide news.......although completely untrue the accused royals life would be a living nightmare from that point on.

Any way back on topic, was this individual physically/sexually abused or just fell foul to a bit of name calling and verbal harressment, if the latter then seriously, this is not news and excuse the pun, they need to grow some balls and stand up for themselves.

In modern day society the most victemised individual is the ginger haired freckled scotsman. Would you take the same defensive stance if the headline read:

Expert claims public transport is no-go for ginger haired people as person made a mockery of and verbally abused on train.
You seen to have gone on a full blown rant, you can't say someone is guilty because they look it; Quote: Ask yourself what is the most likely: that there are 1300 credible charges against an obviously creepy person or that 1300 people are lying for no reason. At no point did I say JS was innocent of all accusations, nor did I say he was guilty of any. The problem is lifes can be ruined from the accusation alone without any proof and it is because of the very mentality you display.....it is more than likely they did do it because they said they did........if I said that during a military inspection a member of royalty cupped and groped my groinal region and left me feeling sexually abused.....I am sure the papers and magazines would love a story like that and it would become world wide news.......although completely untrue the accused royals life would be a living nightmare from that point on. Any way back on topic, was this individual physically/sexually abused or just fell foul to a bit of name calling and verbal harressment, if the latter then seriously, this is not news and excuse the pun, they need to grow some balls and stand up for themselves. In modern day society the most victemised individual is the ginger haired freckled scotsman. Would you take the same defensive stance if the headline read: Expert claims public transport is no-go for ginger haired people as person made a mockery of and verbally abused on train. MartinMo
  • Score: 0

9:37am Wed 19 Feb 14

BMD says...

Here we have a classic Mountain out of a Mole-hill knee jerk reaction again.

The head-line is misleading "The expert turns out to be a Trans-Rights activist" - No bias there!!!!

Was the trans-sexual physically or sexually abused?

Did the trans-sexual feel his/her safety was in jeopardy?

Did the trans-sexual report the incident to the Train conductor or Guard?

If the answer to the above questions is "NO", WTF is latsot harping on about?
Here we have a classic Mountain out of a Mole-hill knee jerk reaction again. The head-line is misleading "The expert turns out to be a Trans-Rights activist" - No bias there!!!! Was the trans-sexual physically or sexually abused? Did the trans-sexual feel his/her safety was in jeopardy? Did the trans-sexual report the incident to the Train conductor or Guard? If the answer to the above questions is "NO", WTF is latsot harping on about? BMD
  • Score: 3

4:05pm Wed 19 Feb 14

ESnowden4EVA says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
I do not consider everyone to be equal.
Far from it.
The white heterosexual Anglo-Saxon male is an increasingly maligned subject in this country facing persecution - and woe betide the white straight man who dares to stand up and say it.

Alas the pinko liberals will not be happy until as a society some or all of the following conditions are present
a) we are ruled by some form of mullah - for all references to christianity must be crushed in the interests of equality
b) all people have some form of disability or 'ism' that enables us to all plead for special privileges when in reality people are just different. For instance, I accept that there are dyslexics - there are also, however, people who are just lazy and can't be bothered. There are men and women straight and gay- all else could be viewed as self indulgent fanciful nonsense that could not be sustained were it not for the fact that we live in an economically developed country/ One notes that in countries where there is no welfare state and in which people have to walk for 5 miles a day to get water there seem to be very few people 'trapped inside the body of the opposite sex' (the reason - they have to spend their daily lives fighting to survive)
c) till all men are viewed as 'guilty' until proven otherwise - as shown, for instance, by the bandwagon, money grabbing antics, over the last few weeks with regard to, for instance B. Roache, and DLT.
No Voice, you aren't "Anglo Saxon" as they were a ruling class and only very minor contributors to the gene pool. Celtic or just British is more accurate.

Christianity is the religion that's "native" to our country, but it's WESTERN values you're thinking of. Christian is and never has been synonymous with advancement or morality.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: I do not consider everyone to be equal. Far from it. The white heterosexual Anglo-Saxon male is an increasingly maligned subject in this country facing persecution - and woe betide the white straight man who dares to stand up and say it. Alas the pinko liberals will not be happy until as a society some or all of the following conditions are present a) we are ruled by some form of mullah - for all references to christianity must be crushed in the interests of equality b) all people have some form of disability or 'ism' that enables us to all plead for special privileges when in reality people are just different. For instance, I accept that there are dyslexics - there are also, however, people who are just lazy and can't be bothered. There are men and women straight and gay- all else could be viewed as self indulgent fanciful nonsense that could not be sustained were it not for the fact that we live in an economically developed country/ One notes that in countries where there is no welfare state and in which people have to walk for 5 miles a day to get water there seem to be very few people 'trapped inside the body of the opposite sex' (the reason - they have to spend their daily lives fighting to survive) c) till all men are viewed as 'guilty' until proven otherwise - as shown, for instance, by the bandwagon, money grabbing antics, over the last few weeks with regard to, for instance B. Roache, and DLT.[/p][/quote]No Voice, you aren't "Anglo Saxon" as they were a ruling class and only very minor contributors to the gene pool. Celtic or just British is more accurate. Christianity is the religion that's "native" to our country, but it's WESTERN values you're thinking of. Christian is and never has been synonymous with advancement or morality. ESnowden4EVA
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree