NationStates Jolt Archive

The couple in question likes to go "walkies", with the girl describing herself as "a pet" :

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/GothRP2201_468x665.jpg

This allegedly upset one local busdriver to such a degree that he did not allow them in his bus and also (physically) stopped them from entering other buses at stations, with phrases like "no freaks/dogs allowed".

Is he right to do so, or is this unaceptable discrimination ? Even though the girl calls herself a doggie ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509713&in_page_id=1770


For fairness sake, it must be noted that the more reliable BBC cites the buscompany as it being a safety issue:

Dog leash goths 'hounded off bus' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7204543.stm)

But let us ignore that for the purpose of the debate. The couple after all claims the driver said something different, and mentions physical abuse.

The couple in question likes to go "walkies", with the girl describing herself as "a female dog" :

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/GothRP2201_468x665.jpg

This upsets one local busdriver to such a degree that he does not allow them in his bus and also stops them from entering other buses at stations, with phrases like "no freaks/dogs allowed".

Is he right to do so, or is this unaceptable discrimination ? Even though the girl calls herself a doggie ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509713&in_page_id=1770

"And I saw people that could be their own dad, wearing clothes I wouldn't pick dog mess out of the yard in". --Bill Engvall

Honestly, I'm not sure. It does border on it I think, but I think I'll wait for an answer from somebody more knowledgeable in such matters, such as Neo Art.

Umm is he right to refuse entry to the bus based on what cloths a person wears?

Why even ask the question. Naaa man I hope he gets the sack.

It is a well known thing though that all bus drivers are cunts(except one)

The couple in question likes to go "walkies", with the girl describing herself as "a female dog" :

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/GothRP2201_468x665.jpg

This upsets one local busdriver to such a degree that he does not allow them in his bus and also stops them from entering other buses at stations, with phrases like "no freaks/dogs allowed".

Is he right to do so, or is this unaceptable discrimination ? Even though the girl calls herself a doggie ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509713&in_page_id=1770

Yes it's discrimination. Unless they were being a deliberate annoyance to the driver and other passengers, besides being themselves, then the driver has no right to refuse them.

Why even ask the question.

Because while it is obvious to me he deserves to get fired, the comments on this news snippet on various sites showed that a lot of people actually agree with him.

I voted "he's in the wrong and he should be fired".

He is in the wrong because the mere fact that they look different is not enough to warrant banning from the bus. I don't know about the UK, but in the US, bus drivers have the right to refuse passengers who appear seriously drunk or stoned, belligerent, disturbed, excessively dirty, are carrying excessive baggage, etc., because these are conditions that would affect the comfort and possibly safety of other passengers. But I don't see how this couple's appearance or behavior, even the leash, would do any of that. The article does not say that the couple engaged in any disruptive behavior while on the bus, so if they did not, then the bus driver is just reacting to his own prejudices.

He should be fired because he got physical against the couple when they were not threatening him or anyone else, or otherwise acting in a bad or disruptive manner. In fact, it seems the only person causing disruption to bus service is the driver himself.

Because while it is obvious to me he deserves to get fired, the comments on this news snippet on various sites showed that a lot of people actually agree with him.

Ahhh these would be the mad people I guess!

Sounds like the bus driver needs to lighten up...

Aah, people commenting on the Daily Mail website. Will you ever fail to entertain?

Well I met a nice bus driver once. His name was Richard....
I think he should be fired and sued. It was discrimination.

1) dear god look at his stripy trousers! *calls Trinny and Susanna*

2) trousers do not just sit relaxed over boots someone teach this man some discipline

3) that girl must be freezing her tits off give her your coat at least

4) if I was that girls dad I would not only kick his arse for not only breaking the creepy dating rule but also marrying her

5) dog related toys are not sexy and never will

the bus driver should be commended as I would of kidnapped them both and forced them to have fun interesting lives (but that wouldn't be allowed unlike refusing admission to whoever the bus driver pleases which is)

The couple in question likes to go "walkies", with the girl describing herself as "a female dog" :

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/GothRP2201_468x665.jpg

This upsets one local busdriver to such a degree that he does not allow them in his bus and also stops them from entering other buses at stations, with phrases like "no freaks/dogs allowed".

Is he right to do so, or is this unaceptable discrimination ? Even though the girl calls herself a doggie ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509713&in_page_id=1770

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

Bwahahahahah!

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

You suppose such codes exist, and I guess you further suppose that this couple don't match up to such codes. That's a lot of supposing. I wonder why the bus company hasn't mentioned any such thing? Maybe, after their "investigation" is done, we will learn whether such codes exist, and depending on the facts, your comment might have some meaning. But for now... not so much, sorry.

<snip>

the bus driver should be commended as I would of kidnapped them both and forced them to have fun interesting lives (but that wouldn't be allowed unlike refusing admission to whoever the bus driver pleases which is)
Leaving aside the question of whether you would have any idea of what a "fun interesting life" would be like :p , can anyone tell me what the actual rule in the UK is?

See, in the US, the bus driver is not allowed to just refuse admission to whomever he pleases according to his own tastes/whims/moods/whatever, just like he's not allowed to dictate where certain people sit on the bus.

So, they're "freaks"... I guess then there is an opening for them in the upcoming Gay Pride Parade! :p Seriously, I don't see how this is worse than the twats who play their music so damn loud that I have to hear it, or those fat fucks take up two seats...

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

I'm curious as to how their apparent dress violates any but the most uptight public dress codes. (Admittedly her top seems fairly low cut, but nothing you wouldn't see out in public all the time. Would the driver still have disallowed her had her toop been red? Pink? Yellow?)

Although do we know if that photo depicts what they were wearing at the time of the incident?

Leaving aside the question of whether you would have any idea of what a "fun interesting life" would be like :p , can anyone tell me what the actual rule in the UK is?

See, in the US, the bus driver is not allowed to just refuse admission to whomever he pleases according to his own tastes/whims/moods/whatever, just like he's not allowed to dictate where certain people sit on the bus.

As far as I know it's pretty much the same here. Of course here in London, we have about 16 cameras on each bus also so both the passengers and driver are monitored.

Leaving aside the question of whether you would have any idea of what a "fun interesting life" would be like :p , can anyone tell me what the actual rule in the UK is?

drivers have total control because technically its his bus (he is responsible for it etc), much like how a airline pilot can eject who he pleases

normally this is applied to noisy folk or hoodies (class war means that never gets in the papers)

See, in the US, the bus driver is not allowed to just refuse admission to whomever he pleases according to his own tastes/whims/moods/whatever, just like he's not allowed to dictate where certain people sit on the bus.

no actually a bus driver can be able to eject who he pleases especially if he notes a safety reason I can't see it working any other way than some ridiculousness involving calling up HQ every time you want to refuse admission

Although do we know if that photo depicts what they were wearing at the time of the incident?

No. Then again, they are students on welfare and these clothes are reasonably expensive. Their wardrobe is probably not that extensive.

Honestly, I'm not sure. It does border on it I think, but I think I'll wait for an answer from somebody more knowledgeable in such matters, such as Neo Art.

Who what where huh? I'm here...I'm here..

OK, first things first, this is England. I have no freaking clue what the law is in England. It generally is similar to ours but not always. This matter especially might differ because this is a public bus, and as such seves a state function, and there's a whole lot of entanglement problems with our constitution, that England just avoids entirely by not really having one (I am being yelled at here over IM so I should note that britain does have a constitution, it's a very lovely one, it just doesn't entirely operate the way the US constitution does in matters like this. But that doesn't stop it from being very lovely indeed).

But, assuming things are roughly analogous, here we go. First off, you can be banned from public facilities based on your clothing and appearance if it is "lewd, licivious or obscene". Now however, her attire, sans leash, really isn't that bad. It's basically pants and a tank top. Nothing particularly lewd or obscene.

So moving to the leash it becomes the question of whether that constitutes lews or obscene. My inclination is to say no. It may be..unusual, it may shock some folks, but it's not really obscene. It doesn't display nudity, it's not graphically sexual, profane or violent, I would generally say it's OK. It represents their lifestyle choices which are somewhat off of mainstream, but they're allowed to make those choices, and the presence of the leash is as much a representation of those lifestyle choices as a wedding ring or a golden cross on a necklace.

however I do see one problem. She's not just wearing a collar and leash. She's wearing a freaking choke chain, on a bus. If the bus comes to a sudden stop and she pitches forward and it wraps around something, she's dead. I wouldn't have let her on, because I wouldn't have wanted the liability of transporting someone with a heavy chain noose around her neck.

Huzzah!

*disappears in a puff of smoke*

however I do see one problem. She's not just wearing a collar and leash. She's wearing a freaking choke chain, on a bus. If the bus comes to a sudden stop and she pitches forward and it wraps around something, she's dead. I wouldn't have let her on, because I wouldn't have wanted the liability of transporting someone with a heavy chain noose around her neck.


Good point. Maybe if the driver had cited that as his reason, there'd be less controversy.

But I suspect it wasn't. :/

drivers have total control because technically its his bus (he is responsible for it etc), much like how a airline pilot can eject who he pleases

normally this is applied to noisy folk or hoodies (class war means that never gets in the papers)



no actually a bus driver can be able to eject who he pleases especially if he notes a safety reason I can't see it working any other way than some ridiculousness involving calling up HQ every time you want to refuse admission
Hey! Have you heard the news? Reading is fundamental, they say. Please actually read my posts in which you will see two things:

1) That I already mentioned that, in the US, bus drivers are allowed to refuse boarding, or eject passengers, for PRACTICAL AND SAFETY REASONS, which obviously is not the same as the bus driver's "tastes/whims/moods/whatever." Buses are not ships at sea, and the bus driver is not the only law on board the bus, in the United States. Get real, please.

2) That I asked for actual information about the rules in the UK. Do you have any actual information about the rules in the UK? If so, please feel free to present it at any time.

EDIT: Also, in response to you, the bus driver does not own the bus. The bus company does, and the bus driver is answerable for what he does with their bus or while on board their bus. They set rules that he has to follow. So the only question is, does this bus driver's conduct conform to the rules set by his employer?

drivers have total control because technically its his bus (he is responsible for it etc), much like how a airline pilot can eject who he pleases

normally this is applied to noisy folk or hoodies (class war means that never gets in the papers)



no actually a bus driver can be able to eject who he pleases especially if he notes a safety reason I can't see it working any other way than some ridiculousness involving calling up HQ every time you want to refuse admission

That's actualy....entirely wrong. No part of that was correct. A bus driver can eject people if he feels they cause a risk to the bus, or the safety of other passengers, himself, or themselves.

That's it.

*The OP*
The guy looks like a complete twat, so I probably wouldn't have let them on a bus. If they didn't have the right change, then no wai!

I think the bus driver thought they were stoned or something, you have to be to dress like that, i'm normally very liberal towards dress, but i don't see any point in dressing well like they did. What a waste of a chain though.
I think if i was the bus driver i wouldn't have let them on.

that England just avoids entirely by not really having one (I am being yelled at here over IM so I should note that britain does have a constitution, it's a very lovely one, it just doesn't entirely operate the way the US constitution does in matters like this. But that doesn't stop it from being very lovely indeed).
The English Bill of Rights is not entrenched, but Parliament would still have to pass legislation to allow this sort of discrimination. Whether they could actually do that now is suspect, considering the pace of constitutional reform in England over the past decade or so. Also important is the adoption of Euoprean Union law, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (both enacted domestically in two pieces of lovely legislation) which has somewhat tied the hands of Paliament when it comes to infringing on civil liberties. The case law has also evolved, allowing the courts to strike down legislation that is incompatible with the EU Convention on Human Rights. Parliament would have to actual repeal the Human Rights Act in order to get around that which frankly, they are not going to do just to protect this driver's fat ass.

By the way, don't as a yank lawyer about law anywhere other than yankland...they believe that they've reached the pinnacle of legal genius, and by virture of that belief are alone in the Commonwealth in completely ignoring what the courts in other countries are doing.

Who what where huh? I'm here...I'm here..

OK, first things first, this is England. I have no freaking clue what the law is in England. It generally is similar to ours but not always. This matter especially might differ because this is a public bus, and as such seves a state function, and there's a whole lot of entanglement problems with our constitution, that England just avoids entirely by not really having one (I am being yelled at here over IM so I should note that britain does have a constitution, it's a very lovely one, it just doesn't entirely operate the way the US constitution does in matters like this. But that doesn't stop it from being very lovely indeed).

But, assuming things are roughly analogous, here we go. First off, you can be banned from public facilities based on your clothing and appearance if it is "lewd, licivious or obscene". Now however, her attire, sans leash, really isn't that bad. It's basically pants and a tank top. Nothing particularly lewd or obscene.

So moving to the leash it becomes the question of whether that constitutes lews or obscene. My inclination is to say no. It may be..unusual, it may shock some folks, but it's not really obscene. It doesn't display nudity, it's not graphically sexual, profane or violent, I would generally say it's OK. It represents their lifestyle choices which are somewhat off of mainstream, but they're allowed to make those choices, and the presence of the leash is as much a representation of those lifestyle choices as a wedding ring or a golden cross on a necklace.

however I do see one problem. She's not just wearing a collar and leash. She's wearing a freaking choke chain, on a bus. If the bus comes to a sudden stop and she pitches forward and it wraps around something, she's dead. I wouldn't have let her on, because I wouldn't have wanted the liability of transporting someone with a heavy chain noose around her neck.

Huzzah!

*disappears in a puff of smoke*

As far as I am aware you can legally be naked in public in England - it only becomes illegal when it meets the rather vague term of being "likely to cause offence".

She isn't naked or dressed indecently - at least for the western standards. I've seen a lot of girls dressed a lot more provocatively on trams or in the tube here in Milan.
The bus company should be sued - if they want, they can sue their employee in turn. Firing him is way too much, I think, or, at least, it wouldn't be allowed by italian law.

Dog leash goths 'hounded off bus' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7204543.stm)

Now let's stop using that DailyMail version and refer to the BBC version, which is much more sensible.

A goth who leads his girlfriend around with a dog lead and collar was stopped from getting on a bus amid fears for passenger safety, a bus firm confirmed.

Dani Graves, 25, and his fiancee Tasha Maltby, 19, of Dewsbury, West Yorks, claim they have been discriminated against by bus firm Arriva Yorkshire.

The black-clad couple said they had been told to leave one bus and prevented from boarding another.

The bus firm said safety came first, but it was investigating the complaint.

Bus operator Arriva claimed other passengers could be put at risk if the bus braked sharply.

Operations director for Arriva Yorkshire, Paul Adcock, said: "Arriva takes any allegation of discrimination very seriously and have interviewed the driver regarding Mr Graves' claims.

"Our primary concern is passenger safety and while the couple are very welcome to travel on our buses, we are asking that Miss Maltby remove her dog lead before boarding the bus.

"It could be dangerous for the couple and other passengers if a driver had to brake sharply while Miss Maltby was wearing the lead."

The company said it was writing to Mr Graves "to apologise for any distress caused by the way this matter was handled".

Because they feel like it? What more reason could you possibly need or expect?
I'm actually pretty amazed at all these people who think they get to use a bus service to express their social tastes. I don't think most of them would last two weeks as a bus driver if they did that. Their job would be to drive the damn bus, not express themselves on company time.

Because they feel like it? What more reason could you possibly need or expect?
I'm sorry, but they take themselves far too seriously.

Plus also - no dogs apart from guide dogs on the bus!

Dog leash goths 'hounded off bus' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7204543.stm)

Now let's stop using that DailyMail version and refer to the BBC version, which is much more sensible.

Hmm - let's not. This is developing into a decent debate on tolerance.
But I will add it to the top post.

i'm normally very liberal towards dress, but i don't see any point in dressing well like they did.

Because they feel like it? What more reason could you possibly need or expect?

Because they feel like it? What more reason could you possibly need or expect?

One that doesn't provoke response from media, it's just attention seeking really. They'l grow out of it... probably.

Hmm - let's not. This is developing into a decent debate on tolerance.
But I will add it to the top post.

Why ignore? This has the real story! :p But you make a valid point... in a sick and twisted way.

How in the world is that "taking themselves too seriously"?

Also, and I know this isn't your point, why does it matter if they take themselves too seriously?

And why is that? Because they dress in a way different than you and live a different lifestyle than you do?

The way I read this article, they weren't doing anything to 'take themselves far too seriously". They were getting on a bus.

They weren't yelling, they weren't screaming. They weren't talking to everyone nearby about their lifestyle. They were silently, keeping to themselves, walking on to a fucking bus.

How in the world is that "taking themselves too seriously"?
"It is definitely discrimination, almost like a hate crime," 19-year-old Miss Maltby said yesterday.

Pfft. They weren't let on because they had a huge chain with them. Which is DANGEREUX!

Damned right it's attention seeking. And if a government owned transportation service did something illegal to me you better believe I'd be with the Boston fucking Globe.

They were treated illegally, by an agent of the government. How is that not newsworthy?
Arriva are a private company. Please can you calm down about it?

I'm sorry, but they take themselves far too seriously.

And why is that? Because they dress in a way different than you and live a different lifestyle than you do?

The way I read this article, they weren't doing anything to 'take themselves far too seriously". They were getting on a bus.

They weren't yelling, they weren't screaming. They weren't talking to everyone nearby about their lifestyle. They were silently, keeping to themselves, walking on to a fucking bus.

How in the world is that "taking themselves too seriously"?

Dog leash goths 'hounded off bus' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7204543.stm)

Now let's stop using that DailyMail version and refer to the BBC version, which is much more sensible.

And there you have it. A bona fide safety concern will overcome the claim of discrimination.

Although I'm sure he only came up with this justification AFTER he realised he was going to get into trouble.

They should still be able to go after him for assault though.

One that doesn't provoke response from media, it's just attention seeking really.

Damned right it's attention seeking. And if a government owned transportation service did something illegal to me you better believe I'd be with the Boston fucking Globe.

They were treated illegally, by an agent of the government. How is that not newsworthy?

Dog leash goths 'hounded off bus' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7204543.stm)

Now let's stop using that DailyMail version and refer to the BBC version, which is much more sensible.

Heheh well I think that the bus company has to put out a statement like that to stop them being sued. It is funny how when getting on a bus with an actual canine, you are not allowed on unless it is on a lease!

I call rubbish on it, it smacks of arse covering.

fulfilling a public function, which makes them....wait for it...wait for it...can you fill in the blank for me?
Public function my arse. Buses in the UK are run purely as businesses.

Really, that was the actual reason? Then perhaps you can explain why the bus driver did not explain this fact, and instead physically restrained them from entering the bus, by force, while telling them "no freaks allowed" because, maybe I'm going deaf in my old age, but "I'm sorry, that chain is a safety risk" sounds a whole fuck load different than "no freaks allowed"
Because he was off duty and hence couldn't be arsed with being polite to them?

Originally posted by BBC article, linked above
Bus operator Arriva claimed other passengers could be put at risk if the bus braked sharply.

Operations director for Arriva Yorkshire, Paul Adcock, said: "Arriva takes any allegation of discrimination very seriously and have interviewed the driver regarding Mr Graves' claims.

"Our primary concern is passenger safety and while the couple are very welcome to travel on our buses, we are asking that Miss Maltby remove her dog lead before boarding the bus.

"It could be dangerous for the couple and other passengers if a driver had to brake sharply while Miss Maltby was wearing the lead."

The company said it was writing to Mr Graves "to apologise for any distress caused by the way this matter was handled".
There. All settled. After looking into the matter, a safety concern was identified, and the couple is assured they can use the bus service as long as the young lady removes the leash while on the bus. As long as the couple are willing to accept this reasonable compromise, the matter can be closed.

Except, of course, for the incident where the bus driver physically shoved the couple. I still say he should be fired for that.

And there you have it. A bona fide safety concern will overcome the claim of discrimination.

Although I'm sure he only came up with this justification AFTER he realised he was going to get into trouble.

They should still be able to go after him for assault though.

You know, I'm sure the bus driver intended exactly that. I'm sure that was entirely his reasoning all along. After all who among us has not meant to say "excuse me miss, but I am afraid that chain will pose a risk to passengers and yourself if the bus breaks suddenly. I'm going to have to ask that you remove it while you are on the bus for safety reasons" and have it, totally by accident, come out as "no freaks allowed."

PERFECTLY understandable mistake.

Arriva are a private company. Please can you calm down about it?

fulfilling a public function, which makes them....wait for it...wait for it...can you fill in the blank for me?

Because he was off duty and hence couldn't be arsed with being polite to them?
If he was off duty, why didn't he let the on-duty driver deal with it? And how does that absolve him of any obligation to avoid assaulting people?

Pfft. They weren't let on because they had a huge chain with them. Which is DANGEREUX!

Really, that was the actual reason? Then perhaps you can explain why the bus driver did not explain this fact, and instead physically restrained them from entering the bus, by force, while telling them "no freaks allowed" because, maybe I'm going deaf in my old age, but "I'm sorry, that chain is a safety risk" sounds a whole fuck load different than "no freaks allowed"

ah. Which is why the company is listed on the UK's public transportation page then?
Because it's a company which works in the field of public transportation... here in the UK that just means "they run buses, or trains, or bicycle rickshaws, or anything else which carries human cargo".

If he was off duty, why didn't he let the on-duty driver deal with it?
Because the on-duty driver was probably sorting out tickets.
And how does that absolve him of any obligation to avoid assaulting people?
Assault?

I think not. The Daily Mail took SUPER TRAGIC reports of the goth couple to make some news up, the BBC site says nothing about any assault.

Grabbing someone's T-shirt and telling them they can't get on a bus is not assault.

Public function my arse. Buses in the UK are run purely as businesses.

ah. Which is why the company is listed on the UK's public transportation page then?

Because it's a company which works in the field of public transportation... here in the UK that just means "they run buses, or trains, or bicycle rickshaws, or anything else which carries human cargo".

After that Thatcher bitch had had her way our government transport system was put out for tender to private business(which is why we get shat upon but that's a different thread), buses, tubes, trains are all privately owned business run for profit.

Ahhh, then if he was off duty, he had absolutly no authority to tell them what to do in regards to the bus what so ever, then does he?
He's still a bus driver...
Because either he was acting in his capacity as an agent of the company, or he was not.
You can act in that kind of capacity without being on-duty.
And if he was not, then he had no authority to act on behalf of the company to eliminate a safety concern. If he was off duty he was just one more normal guy, who had no right ot speak on behalf of the bus company, no right to prevent them from bording, and absolutly no right to physically restrain them.
He's still employed by the company, and for all we know, he might have been about to be going on duty and just having a cigarette before getting up to drive.
So if he was off duty, he was just some guy who came up to them, yelled at them, and grabbed at him. Forget firing the guy, arrest the fucker.
Aye, that's what the Daily Mail's version of their claims says. Pretty dubious tbqh.

Because it's a company which works in the field of public transportation... here in the UK that just means "they run buses, or trains, or bicycle rickshaws, or anything else which carries human cargo".

Someone needs a lesson in administrative law.

Just because private companies are contracted with to provide government legislated, public services, does not suddenly sever the conncetion between government and the company in question. If that WERE the case, well hey...then Parliament could hire private police forces, and completely avoid any sort of civil rights litigation in relation to the actions of the police.

It's a little more nuanced than that, fortunately. The company is serving a public function under enabling legislation and are subject to the same restrictions as any agent of the state.

Really, that was the actual reason? Then perhaps you can explain why the bus driver did not explain this fact, and instead physically restrained them from entering the bus, by force, while telling them "no freaks allowed" because, maybe I'm going deaf in my old age, but "I'm sorry, that chain is a safety risk" sounds a whole fuck load different than "no freaks allowed"

I think it's pretty obvious what happened here: This unusual couple ran into a bigoted jackass of a bus driver who allowed his prejudice and bad manners to create an unnecessary conflict.

The bus company then had to review the situation. I think it boils down to two questions: First, can the lady wear the leash on the bus? Second, was the bus driver's conduct OK?

Apparently, looking at the lady's clothing, the bus company reached the same conclusion you did -- that the leash would be unsafe in a hard-braking situation. Do they ban her from the bus because of it? No, they do not. They just ask that she disconnect the leash while she is on the bus, but assure her that, freak notwithstanding, she is welcome on their buses.

Clearly, this indicates that the bus company does not agree with the bus driver's "no freaks" attitude. They have not yet announced what they intend to do about him, but still, he is obviously not right, according to his employers.

After that Thatcher bitch had had her way our government transport system was put out for tender to private business(which is why we get shat upon but that's a different thread), buses, tubes, trains are all privately owned business run for profit.
Quite.

Because he was off duty and hence couldn't be arsed with being polite to them?

Ahhh, then if he was off duty, he had absolutly no authority to tell them what to do in regards to the bus what so ever, then does he?

Because either he was acting in his capacity as an agent of the company, or he was not.

And if he was not, then he had no authority to act on behalf of the company to eliminate a safety concern. If he was off duty he was just one more normal guy, who had no right ot speak on behalf of the bus company, no right to prevent them from bording, and absolutly no right to physically restrain them.

So if he was off duty, he was just some guy who came up to them, yelled at them, and grabbed at him. Forget firing the guy, arrest the fucker.

Because the on-duty driver was probably sorting out tickets.

Assault?

I think not. The Daily Mail took SUPER TRAGIC reports of the goth couple to make some news up, the BBC site says nothing about any assault.

Grabbing someone's T-shirt and telling them they can't get on a bus is not assault.

I'm taking this from wiki but it seems to disagree :


In England and Wales, an assault consists of a person intentionally or recklessly causing another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.
Causing a person to apprehend violence can be committed by way of action or words: Ireland [1998] AC 147. Of course, words can also mean that otherwise threatening actions are rendered not capable of being an assault, as in the celebrated case of Tuberville v. Savage (1669 1 Mod 3, T). In that case, the Defendant told the Complainant (while putting his hand on his sword) that he would not stab him, because the circuit judge was visiting town for the local assizes. On that basis, the Complainant was deemed to have known that he was not about to be injured, and no assault was held to have been committed.
The "immediacy" required has been the subject of some debate. The leading case, again, is Ireland [1998] AC 147. The House of Lords held that the making of silent telephone calls could amount to an assault, if it caused the victim to believe that physical violence might be used against him in the immediate future. One example of "immediacy" adopted by the House in that case was that a man who said, "I will be at your door in a minute or two," might (in the circumstances where those words amounted to a threat) be guilty of an assault.
Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that common assault, like battery, is triable only in the magistrates court in England and Wales (unless it is linked to a more serious offense which is triable in the Crown Court). Additionally, if a Defendant has been charged on an indictment with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), or racially/religiously aggravated assault, then a jury in the Crown Court may acquit the Defendant of the more serious offense, but still convict of common assault if it finds common assault has been committed.
Because common assault is a summary-only offense, its maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment, or a "level 5 fine" (currently up to £5,000). The "starting sentence" for a first time offender pleading guilty is normally a community penalty.

Grabbing someone's T-shirt and telling them they can't get on a bus is not assault.

Oh yes it is. A random person, with no authority to speak for the bus company what so ever (remember, you noted he was off duty) grabbing someone is most certainly assault.

Someone needs a lesson in administrative law.

Just because private companies are contracted with to provide government legislated, public services, does not suddenly sever the conncetion between government and the company in question. If that WERE the case, well hey...then Parliament could hire private police forces, and completely avoid any sort of civil rights litigation in relation to the actions of the police.

It's a little more nuanced than that, fortunately. The company is serving a public function under enabling legislation and are subject to the same restrictions as any agent of the state.
Parliament doesn't hire private police forces because that kind of thing doesn't really exist here in the UK. We have privately run prisons, which have to conform to the same laws as publicly-run prisons, but that's about it.

Bus companies are privately-owned, and whilst they do have contracts, I don't actually see how this reflects on this case. Two people come in, with a massive chain which would be a danger to public safety in the event of quick breaking, and they weren't let on...
Oh yes it is. A random person, with no authority to speak for the bus company what so ever (remember, you noted he was off duty) grabbing someone is most certainly assault.
He grabbed his t-shirt. If you have ever been to West Yorkshire, you might know that this is not a real issue, and actually seems to be some benefit scroungers finding an excuse to sue people so that they can start off their family life.

He's still a bus driver...

At that moment no he was not, he was just joe schmo guy hanging around. If he was not on duty then he was not, in any sense, able to act in any official capacity.

Quite.

Except the company is still acting in a public capacity, as has been pointed out. I expect you'll be quoting that post soon with 'quite' as well.

After that Thatcher bitch had had her way our government transport system was put out for tender to private business(which is why we get shat upon but that's a different thread), buses, tubes, trains are all privately owned business run for profit.

doesn't matter. Even if they are a for profit enterprise, they are fulfilling a public function. Agencies, even private ones, that fulfil public functions are still bound by the same laws that a government is. It's called entanglement of public function.

Otherwise, as Neesika said, a government could simply hire a private police force and they wouldn't be bound by any laws regarding arrest, detainment, or seizure.

And it doesn't work that way, to prevent exactly that sort of thing. An entity, even a for profit private business, that fulfills public functions are obligated to follow the same restrictions the government is. You can't just get around civil liberties by outsourcing government responsibilities to private entities, and it has consistantly been held that public transportation is a government duty.

Because the on-duty driver was probably sorting out tickets.
So? When he got around to sorting out the tickets of the goth couple, he would have dealt with them then. Where's the big need for this off-duty jerk to horn in on the other guy's shift? Is he trying to imply that his co-worker is not competent to handle passengers?

Assault?

I think not. The Daily Mail took SUPER TRAGIC reports of the goth couple to make some news up, the BBC site says nothing about any assault.

Grabbing someone's T-shirt and telling them they can't get on a bus is not assault.
Well, one kind of paper saying something and another kind of paper not saying it doesn't really tell us much. To be sure what happened, we have to wait for the bus company and whatever other authorities get involved to release factual information.

However, for the sake of discussion, let us assume that what is said to have happened really happened, but without all the melodrama. Let's just say that the off-duty driver physically restrained the male half of the goth couple from boarding the bus, even though he was trying to board in a normal manner. It will take a lot of arguing back and forth before we can decide whether actual shoving/assault took place, but it doesn't matter. There was no reason for this person to use physical force to restrain this other person, so his action is not justified. For that alone, he should be fired by the bus company.

If UK law is as broad as US law, then grabbing a person's shirt and restraining them can be called assault, depending on the circumstances, and that would be a further unjustifiable condition of the bus driver's actions.

Parliament doesn't hire private police forces because that kind of thing doesn't really exist here in the UK. We have privately run prisons, which have to conform to the same laws as publicly-run prisons, but that's about it. The existence or not of private police forces has absolutely no bearing on the issue. The point is, just because a private company is contracted to fulfill a public duty, this does not somehow turn that public duty into a private one.

Bus companies are privately-owned, and whilst they do have contracts, I don't actually see how this reflects on this case. Two people come in, with a massive chain which would be a danger to public safety in the event of quick breaking, and they weren't let on... It reflects on this case because

a) the Human Rights Act applies to all agents of the state, which I have established this bus company is and

b) therefore, the couple can claim discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

That the bus company will likely be able to refute that claim by introducing a bona fide safety concern does not alter the fact that you are wrong in believing that private company = no public liability.

He grabbed his t-shirt. If you have ever been to West Yorkshire, you might know that this is not a real issue, and actually seems to be some benefit scroungers finding an excuse to sue people so that they can start off their family life.It doesn't matter if it's the fucking deep ghetto...assault is assault is assault. What constitutes assault is governed by the criminal code or civil law principles depending on which way they want to go... not by where the assault occurred, or by whether you, the legal amateur THINKS it is assault or not.

If the driver is found to have been acting in the capacity of an agent for the company, the company may be found liable for his actions as well OR that agency could justify his actions. That is extremely relevant.

I don't care whether or not "it's a real issue". He grabbed on to another person in an attempt to prevent them from entering a bus. An act, being that he was off duty, he had no authority to do. That's assault, plain and simple.

I don't think grabbing someone else is assualt, maybe breach of the peace but not assault.

Parliament doesn't hire private police forces because that kind of thing doesn't really exist here in the UK. We have privately run prisons, which have to conform to the same laws as publicly-run prisons, but that's about it.

Bingo. Privately run companies that fulfill public functions are required to abide by the same laws that the government is. And since you just admitted that, and since public transportation has consistently been held to be a function of the government....well...you just sorta put your foot in it there didn't you?

Yeah, they were posing no threat anyone so the off duty driver grabbing them like that whether he actually assaulted them or not, should be fired. Though I can totally understand how you could mix up "Please refrain from entering the bus with that leash as it poses a safety hazard" with "No freaks allowed", I mean I mix stuff up like that all the time.

He grabbed his t-shirt. If you have ever been to West Yorkshire, you might know that this is not a real issue, and actually seems to be some benefit scroungers finding an excuse to sue people so that they can start off their family life.

I don't care whether or not "it's a real issue". He grabbed on to another person in an attempt to prevent them from entering a bus. An act, being that he was off duty, he had no authority to do. That's assault, plain and simple.

I think that arguments that the bus driver was within his rights and acting in accordance with the way buses are run in the UK are pretty well killed by the BBC article, which quotes the bus company's representative as saying that the goth couple (i.e. the "freaks") ARE allowed onto the bus, so long as they conform to safety requirements.

Clearly, the bus driver was wrong, and banning freaks is NOT how buses are run in the UK. That means that everyone arguing that he was following the established custom of bus company business and representing the bus company in an appropriate manner are also wrong.

Really? Those guys are 'freaks'? Really? Wow. Those two wouldn't even get a second glance around here. They're pretty mild. I wonder what kind of lilypad existence some people are living if people as plain as these offend your sensibilities...

I think that arguments that the bus driver was within his rights and acting in accordance with the way buses are run in the UK are pretty well killed by the BBC article, which quotes the bus company's representative as saying that the goth couple (i.e. the "freaks") ARE allowed onto the bus, so long as they conform to safety requirements.

Clearly, the bus driver was wrong, and banning freaks is NOT how buses are run in the UK. That means that everyone arguing that he was following the established custom of bus company business are also wrong.

Yeah thats about the gist of it. Also as anybody in the UK who regularly uses a bus service will know, bus drivers are cunts, the whole lot of them, except one.

Really? Those guys are 'freaks'? Really? Wow. Those two wouldn't even get a second glance around here. They're pretty mild. I wonder what kind of lilypad existence some people are living if people as plain as these offend your sensibilities...

Mmmhmmm. My thought as well.

Wow. Those two wouldn't even get a second glance around here.

Silly people in your neighbourhood. The girl definitely would get multiple glances from me ;)
But then again, I like the clothes.

Silly people in your neighbourhood. The girl definitely would get multiple glances from me ;)
But then again, I like the clothes.

Well, it's California, we don't really have a hot chick shortage...;)

Yeah thats about the gist of it. Also as anybody in the UK who regularly uses a bus service will know, bus drivers are cunts, the whole lot of them, except one.

Which one? I don't believe i've met him or her.

Really? Those guys are 'freaks'? Really? Wow. Those two wouldn't even get a second glance around here. They're pretty mild. I wonder what kind of lilypad existence some people are living if people as plain as these offend your sensibilities...

Heheh I was thinking much along the same line. I mean how sad is it when an adult indulges in the kind of 'but they look differant to us' kind of mentality usually reserved for the
'Mods vs rockers' of youth.

Which one? I don't believe i've met him or her.

Ohh I got on a bus once, where this woman was just behind me, getting on with a small child in her arms, and the bloody bus driver only waited until she had seated and made sure that the child and mother where both safe before driving off!

Yeah I know! It only happened the once though.

Bingo. Privately run companies that fulfill public functions are required to abide by the same laws that the government is. And since you just admitted that, and since public transportation has consistently been held to be a function of the government....well...you just sorta put your foot in it there didn't you?
Meh, whatever. Pretty pointless me arguing.

I don't think grabbing someone else is assualt, maybe breach of the peace but not assault.

assault is by definition putting someone in immediate apprehention of harm. It is not, despite what people think, actually harming/hitting/contacting someone. That, rather, is battery. I can assault you without every touching you, say, by getting next to you and yelling in your fact "I AM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU!" That would be an assault, as I place you in apprehention of immediate harm.

"assault" and "battery" are not the same thing. What most people think of as "assault" (hitting someone, harming them in some way, etc) is in fact, battery. Grabbing his shirt is arguably not a battery. However grabbing someone and yelling at them in an aggressive way is something I could very easily see as something that would place an individual in apprehention (note, apprehention, not fear) of immediate harm and/or violence.

Which makes it, quite clearly, an assault.

Meh, whatever. Pretty pointless me arguing.

QFT.

Silly people in your neighbourhood. The girl definitely would get multiple glances from me ;)
But then again, I like the clothes.

the attire is definitly hot, marred only by the unfortunate presence of a butter face.

the attire is definitly hot, marred only by the unfortunate presence of a butter face.
Aw, come on, she wasn't THAT bad. :p

But then I'm a hetero chick, so what do I know?

Aw, come on, she wasn't THAT bad. :p

But then I'm a hetero chick, so what do I know?

She's not ugly, she's just really, really young-looking. As in icky young.

She's not ugly, she's just really, really young-looking. As in icky young.

Well she is only 19, the bloke looks kinda familiar to me though.

It certainly would annoy me a little bit. But over-all, would it be any of my business? No.

Eccentricities are no reason to bar bus-entry. The driver should be briefed on his mistake, if not fired.

She's not ugly, she's just really, really young-looking. As in icky young.
I don't know -- I don't see it. She looks perfectly normal to me.

Except, of course, for her figure. *fumes in jealousy at hot goth chick* How I detest hot 19-year-olds. ;)

When I lived in Munich, there was a goth who'd regularly ride my bus. He wore a skirt, most of the time. Never was a problem for anyone.

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

"Acceptable dress code" is a bunch of nonsense. If it were not unsanitary, people could go about naked for all I care.

Dress codes are constantly shifting. Why should the government get to pick what is "hip"?

assault is by definition putting someone in immediate apprehention of harm. It is not, despite what people think, actually harming/hitting/contacting someone. That, rather, is battery. I can assault you without every touching you, say, by getting next to you and yelling in your fact "I AM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU!" That would be an assault, as I place you in apprehention of immediate harm.

"assault" and "battery" are not the same thing. What most people think of as "assault" (hitting someone, harming them in some way, etc) is in fact, battery. Grabbing his shirt is arguably not a battery. However grabbing someone and yelling at them in an aggressive way is something I could very easily see as something that would place an individual in apprehention (note, apprehention, not fear) of immediate harm and/or violence.

Which makes it, quite clearly, an assault.

So if someone yells at you about say "I hate your dad, he's a stupid moron!" and continues obscenities, not necessarily insulting to you but yelling them to you, does that count as assualt? I only ask because i had that happen to me once, that's why i'm not totally against the death penalty, maybe one day someone else can get rid of him.
Oh back to topic I think the Bus driver was a little harsh calling them freaks, if he actually said take the chain off please it's dangerous then get them in no problem there. People can dress how they like i think, but in my opinion i think it's a waste of money buying clothes like them, as it's copying so many other Goths, which is boring.

Hmmm, why don't more women dress up like this? Comon.....it's hot! :(

No it's not. definately not hot, wierd but not hot no way.

The couple in question likes to go "walkies", with the girl describing herself as "a female dog" :

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/GothRP2201_468x665.jpg

Hmmm, why don't more women dress up like this? Comon.....it's hot! :(

No it's not. definately not hot, wierd but not hot no way.

It's a form fitting dress with buckles. Does that really pass for weird these days? When did the bar dip so low? Are you people from the 1930s?

So you're telling me, that if you had a woman dress up in a dog collar and a black suit that shows about 40 to 60% of her breast and has straps all over it, you wouldn't be turned on? Really? Wow....you need help! :p

Nuh uh, you are soooo wrong.
How on earth can you be turned on by that?
I mean it's like selling your self by how you look, sure it helps but don't go over the top.
so to conclude my argument you are so wrong a whole new level of wrong is devoted to you, called Groveness.

So you're telling me, that if you had a woman dress up in a dog collar and a black suit that shows about 40 to 60% of her breast and has straps all over it, you wouldn't be turned on? Really? Wow....you need help! :p
Aye, but it looks like her job is "getting punched in the face... technician" (incidentally, it's important for all British jobs to have 'technician or co-ordinator' in their titles).

No it's not. definately not hot, wierd but not hot no way.

So you're telling me, that if you had a woman dress up in a dog collar and a black suit that shows about 40 to 60% of her breast and has straps all over it, you wouldn't be turned on? Really? Wow....you need help! :p

It's a form fitting dress with buckles. Does that really pass for weird these days? When did the bar dip so low? Are you people from the 1930s?

Hey:) the only bar that dipped is the one that hit you when you made that post.
Form fitting dress, hah so's a bin-bag but you don't see people wearing those.

I suppose there is an acceptable code of conduct and dress for public and private institutions such as buses etc. Freaks such as them violate those codes.

Can we ban women with their tight jeans half way down their ass and their thong all the way up past thier hip bones too?

For that matter, how about banning fat people? No one wants to look at fat people. And they certainly pose a safety risk. If the bus were to stop suddenly, don't you think 200+ pounds of unanchored weight would cause some injuries?

:rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with how they're dressed. If the driver had an issue with the leash, he could have politely asked her to take it off while on the bus for 'safety reasons'. If they didn't comply -then- he'd have a reason not to admit them. There was NO reason to ban them entry from other buses as well.

What an ass.

I personally think the girl is sexy. Big breasts, nice hips, goth look. Very alluring.

Anyway, on topic... I think if the driver is that abusive, you have every right to force your way on. Now, I'm all for talking before using force, and using force as a last resort, but if this driver is not in the least willing to talk and is going so far as to call them freaks, and overstepping his authority, and assaulting them, these people have every right to shove him aside and force their way past him.

Whether or not the cops would recognise that right is a whole different matter, but sometimes you have to stick up for your rights so as not to be a little French pansy who's totally unworthy of living. (No offence to French people who are not pansies.) If he's really assaulting or even makes it seem like he's assaulting them, one can knock the POS unconscious and claim self-defence. Of course, if the goth administers JUSTICE and curbstomps the bastard, then they might burn up whatever currency they have with the court of public opinion.

Hey:) the only bar that dipped is the one that hit you when you made that post.
Form fitting dress, hah so's a bin-bag but you don't see people wearing those.

Not so fast:
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5267004,00.jpg

Not so fast:
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5267004,00.jpg

Now that is better, it's economic you can get it anywhere and it's really funny. Gothic style clothes are boring because so many people wear them. But bizzare clothes like them are really cool, however i can picture big stores like Tesco putting adverts on them, and you'd become a walking billboard.
OOOH billboards! in fact just have a fancy dress month for the world, that would be cool.

Hey:) the only bar that dipped is the one that hit you when you made that post.
Form fitting dress, hah so's a bin-bag but you don't see people wearing those.Never been to a toga party, have we?

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/n1508835_31327941_2153.jpg

drivers have total control because technically its his bus (he is responsible for it etc), much like how a airline pilot can eject who he pleases

normally this is applied to noisy folk or hoodies (class war means that never gets in the papers)



no actually a bus driver can be able to eject who he pleases especially if he notes a safety reason I can't see it working any other way than some ridiculousness involving calling up HQ every time you want to refuse admission

I bet she was barking.

drivers have total control because technically its his bus (he is responsible for it etc), much like how a airline pilot can eject who he pleases

normally this is applied to noisy folk or hoodies (class war means that never gets in the papers)

no actually a bus driver can be able to eject who he pleases..he can refuse access but must have a good reason to do so. In this case he does NOT.

There. All settled. After looking into the matter, a safety concern was identified....bullshit.

most likely:
The bus driver refused them access simple because he was shocked by the leach.. asked the girl to remove it and she refused.

The goths can go fuck themselves. I wouldn't have refused them entry, but I don't blame the driver a bit.

Uh...you don't blame him for what? For disliking them so intensely?

So you're fine with hating people based on their membership in a subculture? Since when did you head down that road?

I bet she was barking.

My question is...was he scooping?

I was drawn to the tragedy of Lily Allen's miscarriage. :(

The goths can go fuck themselves. I wouldn't have refused them entry, but I don't blame the driver a bit.

I was drawn to the tragedy of Lily Allen's miscarriage. :(

The goths can go fuck themselves. I wouldn't have refused them entry, but I don't blame the driver a bit.

Exactly what is your problem? What makes goths so bad?

Exactly what is your problem? What makes goths so bad?

Well, aside from people not being dogs, the overwhelmingly juvenile need for attention, and the complete hypocritical whining when they get the attention, nothing.

Nobody needs to be like everyone else, but these Emmy-award-winners are so desperate to be different, they conform to deliberate nonconformity. In short, they're rebels without a cause. Or a clue, for that matter.

So I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of this perception as my problem. I'm not the one allowing myself to be treated like an animal in public nor am I the one holding the leash. It's adolescent posturing writ publicly, it's bogus, and it's disingenuous.

Well, aside from people not being dogs, the overwhelmingly juvenile need for attention, and the complete hypocritical whining when they get the attention, nothing.

Some Goths just like looking like that. That it indeed is not original matters little to them- they think it pretty.
Of course, if these two fit that profile is something I do not know.

The goths can go fuck themselves. I wouldn't have refused them entry, but I don't blame the driver a bit.I dont particularly like the goths, emos, (insert here any sub cult) etc

But surely thats -in itself- is not reason enough to ban them form public transportation.

But people do NOT belong on leashes

Not even if they want to ? What gives you the right to decide that ?

Well, aside from people not being dogs....I dont care.. as long as they dont poo on my yard, piss on my shoes, or try to pit-bully me (or someone else.)

their fantasies are not of my concern.. as long as they respect my Airspace and my physical integrity.

Some Goths just like looking like that. That it indeed is not original matters little to them- they think it pretty.
Of course, if these two fit that profile is something I do not know.

Again, missing the point -- I like black, too. I find it juvenile and repulsive to call yourself a dog and allow yourself to be leashed. It shows signs of undiagnosed psychopathology.

I dont particularly like the goths, emos, (insert here any sub cult) etc

But surely thats -in itself- is not reason enough to ban them form public transportation.

I never said it was. Read my replies. The notion of someone believing they need to be leashed or wishing to be leashed (not what they wear) is repellant to me, especially in a public setting.

Not even if they want to ? What gives you the right to decide that ?

Basic human dignity?

Uh...you don't blame him for what? For disliking them so intensely?

So you're fine with hating people based on their membership in a subculture? Since when did you head down that road?

What road?

Look, there's nothing wrong with holding whatever views about this world you'd care to hold in your head, and I don't give a rat's ball-bag how you dress. But people do NOT belong on leashes. Play-acting is not for public transportation. If you want to act like my niece and pretend you're a dog, that's fine, but she's four years old, and she knows not to do it in public.

Never mind the potential for neck/spinal cord injury in case of a hard stop or accident, it's undignified. It's low-grade bondage and doesn't belong in a public place like a transit conveyance. Keep it at home or sex-positive clubs (like Seattle's famous Wet Spot).

It's disingenuous to want to draw attention to yourself as a goth and then complain when the attention is paid when you go too far or try too hard. And these two are trying way too hard.

Basic human dignity?

Is that not that every human is allowed to decide for themselves ?

I find them kinda bizarre too, but that's no reason to deny them entry on the bus. They weren't harming anyone and they were completely within their rights. The bus driver had no right to do that.

Which is why I said that I WOULD HAVE LET THEM ON THE BUS. I would have known it wasn't my job to pass that kind of judgment. However, I don't blame the driver for his refusal. I'd transfer him to a less goth-heavy route. The 'burbs, for example.

Well, aside from people not being dogs, the overwhelmingly juvenile need for attention, and the complete hypocritical whining when they get the attention, nothing.

Nobody needs to be like everyone else, but these Emmy-award-winners are so desperate to be different, they conform to deliberate nonconformity. In short, they're rebels without a cause. Or a clue, for that matter.

So I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of this perception as my problem. I'm not the one allowing myself to be treated like an animal in public nor am I the one holding the leash. It's adolescent posturing writ publicly, it's bogus, and it's disingenuous.

I find them kinda bizarre too, but that's no reason to deny them entry on the bus. They weren't harming anyone and they were completely within their rights. The bus driver had no right to do that.

I find them kinda bizarre too, but that's no reason to deny them entry on the bus. They weren't harming anyone and they were completely within their rights. The bus driver had no right to do that.

I agree completely. I would add this, however.

The Bus Driver had no right to do what he did.

The young man has every right to complain and seek redress.

The young woman, having obviously voluntarily renounced her rights as a Human, would be hypocritical if she complained. Pets don't get rights. It would be interfering in her own lifestyle choice to allow her to lodge a complaint on her own.

Great, 9 pages of everyone agreeing with themselves -_-

Is that not that every human is allowed to decide for themselves ?

Absolutely. However, other humans are allowed to decide that there's a line they don't want crossed on their bus. If that line is determined to be unacceptably drawn, then that driver deserves whatever discipline is due according to transit policy.

And y'know what else? It's just plain stupid, okay? There, I've said it. Grow the hell up and act like people, and negative attention is something you'll likely avoid. I've had my fill of the goth attitude because it's rebellion for no reason. It's "being different" like a whole other bunch of people, which is not different at all. Why the hell is it that people with different ideas somehow MUST dress like imbeciles and wear leashes instead of just having their different ideas?

BDSM belongs in privacy, not in public.

What road?

Look, there's nothing wrong with holding whatever views about this world you'd care to hold in your head, and I don't give a rat's ball-bag how you dress. But people do NOT belong on leashes. Play-acting is not for public transportation. If you want to act like my niece and pretend you're a dog, that's fine, but she's four years old, and she knows not to do it in public.

Never mind the potential for neck/spinal cord injury in case of a hard stop or accident, it's undignified. It's low-grade bondage and doesn't belong in a public place like a transit conveyance. Keep it at home or sex-positive clubs (like Seattle's famous Wet Spot).

It's disingenuous to want to draw attention to yourself as a goth and then complain when the attention is paid when you go too far or try too hard. And these two are trying way too hard.

1) There is a difference between attention seeking and deserving abuse.

2) I have routinely worn a collar, at times even in public, and been treated in ways that no doubt would offend your perception of basic human dignity. I happen to enjoy that, and consent to it. Your moral precepts do not get to negate my freedom of choice.

3) Exercising freedom of choice in this manner does not mean that you have given up your human rights, and others are now free to treat you as they see fit.

4) The only thing remotely pathological here is your apparent rabid hatred of a specific group of people which amounts to nothing more than bigotry. You do not know this couple, and yet you express hated for them.

5) The safety issues involved in her particular choice of collar are valid. Yet I suspect even if she worse a collar that could not choke her, you would still be blasting her.

Great, 9 pages of everyone agreeing with themselves -_-

I think you're in the wrong thread.

I've had my fill of the goth attitude because it's rebellion for no reason. It's "being different" like a whole other bunch of people, which is not different at all. Why the hell is it that people with different ideas somehow MUST dress like imbeciles and wear leashes instead of just having their different ideas?yes, but all that is no reason to ban them from the Bus, the Driver should be fired.. or given the opportunity to be a janitor in that company. ;)

The young woman, having obviously voluntarily renounced her rights as a Human, would be hypocritical if she complained. Pets don't get rights. It would be interfering in her own lifestyle choice to allow her to lodge a complaint on her own.

What an idiotic argument.

She is in a consensual relationship with one person, and has consented to certain treatment from him. Consent is always present, and she can refuse that treatment any time she wishes.

Her lifestyle choices do not mean that she has consented to other people treating her in any way differently than any other human being. Regardless of the role she takes with her boyfriend, her human rights remain.

The young woman, having obviously voluntarily renounced her rights as a Human, would be hypocritical if she complained. Pets don't get rights. It would be interfering in her own lifestyle choice to allow her to lodge a complaint on her own.

I can't even begin to explain what is wrong with this post. How in the world does a choice one makes in regards to the lifestyle she lives with her partner, in any way invalidate her rights as a person?

I don't think you get to decide what her lifestyle is, or when she chooses to exercise it and under what contexts.

BDSM belongs in privacy, not in public.

Says you.

You're entitled to your opinion. You aren't entitled to enforce it. Thankfully.

BDSM belongs in privacy, not in public.

Why is that, exactly? Every married person I know wears a wedding ring in public. Every engaged woman I know wears an engagement ring in public. Numerous religious people wear symbols and dresses of their religion, in public.

People make very public displays of their lifestyle choices all the time. How in the world is a woman wearing a collar in public because she views hereself as a "pet" any different than a woman wearing an engagement ring in public because that's a symbol that she is an engaged woman?

I'm tired of bus drivers displaying their lifestyle choice as a driver of busses in public.

Why is that, exactly?

Cuz it's ICKY!!!!!

And one time I saw two guys kissing and I SO nearly threw up in my mouth....

Doesn't the BDSM imply some sort of sexual gratification? Would this imply that the collar would be fine if it didn't have sexual connotations?

That chain doesn't look very functional.

It looks like a choker chain to me so it has the function of choking.

There are a lot of other things you can use a leash for too :D

That chain doesn't look very functional.

He should lose his job. Heres why. If it was his car, his private property, he's well within his right.


Unfortunitally, its public transportation, so sorry man, you discriminated and denied someone a city service based on manner of dress.

It doesnt matter what else is involved, be it physical abuse or rude remarks, its simply a matter of him denying community services to someone based on a manner of dress which violated no laws.

Again, missing the point -- I like black, too. I find it juvenile and repulsive to call yourself a dog and allow yourself to be leashed. It shows signs of undiagnosed psychopathology.



I never said it was. Read my replies. The notion of someone believing they need to be leashed or wishing to be leashed (not what they wear) is repellant to me, especially in a public setting.

It is repellent enough no doubt in the US, weren't our soldiers tried for putting a leash on a prisoner? Yet here we have people who like it. Go figure.

Not necessarily, no. There is a great deal of BDSM, especially aspects of d/s, that have little to do with sex and sexual gratification

And this assumes that this is actuallY BDSM, not some other fetish that doesn't necessarily have to do with BDSM.



Again I don't see the sexual connotations. She considers herself as the role of a pet in her relationship, and so wears a leash. That need not have anything, necessarily, to do with sex.

Well, if Intangleton was implying that it should not be public because of its sexual connotations, then any non-sexual use of a dog collar and leash should be acceptable, right?

Absolutely. However, other humans are allowed to decide that there's a line they don't want crossed on their bus. If that line is determined to be unacceptably drawn, then that driver deserves whatever discipline is due according to transit policy.

And y'know what else? It's just plain stupid, okay? There, I've said it. Grow the hell up and act like people, and negative attention is something you'll likely avoid. I've had my fill of the goth attitude because it's rebellion for no reason. It's "being different" like a whole other bunch of people, which is not different at all. Why the hell is it that people with different ideas somehow MUST dress like imbeciles and wear leashes instead of just having their different ideas?

BDSM belongs in privacy, not in public.

I've travelled the same bus lines as those guys, you know. I lived in Sheffield for a while. When I was in full goth my hair was dyed and spiked, I was in full makeup, I would wear a tailor made leather and velvet shirt, spiked leather armbrace armour, PVC pants, huge boots, and a latex skirt.

I consider your attitude ridiculous and offensive. Even kinda stupid.

But overall, I don't mind - because you are just filled with pointless rhetoric, and I've actually had to PHYSICALLY fight people who thought the same shit you regurgitate, but thought they could make a better argument with their fists.

I always thought THOSE people should "grow the hell up and act like people". Ironic, eh?

Doesn't the BDSM imply some sort of sexual gratification? Would this imply that the collar would be fine if it didn't have sexual connotations?

My brother wears a collar. He doesn't consider himself a pet, and he is most certainly not into BDSM. He just like how the collar looks. It disturbs me that Intangelon might consider this excessive attention seeking, lack of maturity, and a reason to abuse him. I don't even want to think of what treatment Intangelon might think my transgendered brother would deserve, especially when dressed as a woman in public.

Doesn't the BDSM imply some sort of sexual gratification?

Not necessarily, no. There is a great deal of BDSM, especially aspects of d/s, that have little to do with sex and sexual gratification

And this assumes that this is actuallY BDSM, not some other fetish that doesn't necessarily have to do with BDSM.

Would this imply that the collar would be fine if it didn't have sexual connotations?

Again I don't see the sexual connotations. She considers herself as the role of a pet in her relationship, and so wears a leash. That need not have anything, necessarily, to do with sex.

Well, if Intangleton was implying that it should not be public because of its sexual connotations, then any non-sexual use of a dog collar and leash should be acceptable, right?

The article said it was a lifestyle choice, not (just) a fetish.

I'm sure Intangelon has dressed to impress before in his life. That's called attention seeking, possibly some sign of undiagnosed psychopathology.

Riiiiiiight. Because abusing a prisoner and leashing him without his consent is EXACTLY the same as consensually allowing your loved one to leash you.

Nooooo....because it is simply interesting what one person finds offensive, one finds funny and one finds should be illegal....nothing more than that.

It is repellent enough no doubt in the US, weren't our soldiers tried for putting a leash on a prisoner? Yet here we have people who like it. Go figure.

Riiiiiiight. Because abusing a prisoner and leashing him without his consent is EXACTLY the same as consensually allowing your loved one to leash you.

Why is that, exactly? Every married person I know wears a wedding ring in public. Every engaged woman I know wears an engagement ring in public. Numerous religious people wear symbols and dresses of their religion, in public.

People make very public displays of their lifestyle choices all the time. How in the world is a woman wearing a collar in public because she views hereself as a "pet" any different than a woman wearing an engagement ring in public because that's a symbol that she is an engaged woman?
A married woman's spouse can't kill her by pulling too hard on her ring.
Or was that too obvious of an answer?
As for the guy? I don't know what time period that kind of coat was popular in, but it was probably a horrible one much better written out of both humanities history books and closets.

My, the attitudes in that relationship sound quite...medieval.

And? I believe the point of the relationship is that those two CHOSE their roles, rather than having them forced upon them, no?

(Incidentally, I know couples living much the same lifestyle... and sometimes the girl is the pet, and sometimes it's the boy. It may resemble medieval cultures... but it's not one).

A married woman's spouse can't kill her by pulling too hard on her ring.


The ring performs the same function, though - it's a symbol of ownership.

The weird thing about the Goth bondage thing is the woman is really not treated exactly like a dog. Usually its either for shock value or it turns her on to be controled.

A pretty medieval one, at that. Viewing a woman as a sort of pet, more akin to a dog or cat? C'mon. What century are we living in?

I am a woman living in Canada, with a high level of education, no mental illness, and I enjoy being beaten black and blue, and treated like property.

It's the 21st century. Consent is the difference.

My, the attitudes in that relationship sound quite...medieval.

Nooooo....because it is simply interesting what one person finds offensive, one finds funny and one finds should be illegal....nothing more than that.

Fair enough.

The article said it was a lifestyle choice, not (just) a fetish.

A pretty medieval one, at that. Viewing a woman as a sort of pet, more akin to a dog or cat? C'mon. What century are we living in?

A pretty medieval one, at that. Viewing a woman as a sort of pet, more akin to a dog or cat? C'mon. What century are we living in?

President Huckabee of the USA would approve ;)

A married woman's spouse can't kill her by pulling too hard on her ring. So what? He could push her in front of a bus instead.

The choke chain might not be the safest type of collar, but then again, a large ring with a huge stone is a magnet for muggings...BAN THEM!

The ring performs the same function, though - it's a symbol of ownership.

Hawt.

Although I don't particularly agree that this is the case anymore.

A pretty medieval one, at that. Viewing a woman as a sort of pet, more akin to a dog or cat? C'mon. What century are we living in?

A more open accepting time where people don't have to dress according to politically correct social pressures without being discriminated against?


*looks at OP*

shit! Nevermind.

Well, aside from people not being dogs, the overwhelmingly juvenile need for attention, and the complete hypocritical whining when they get the attention, nothing.

Nobody needs to be like everyone else, but these Emmy-award-winners are so desperate to be different, they conform to deliberate nonconformity. In short, they're rebels without a cause. Or a clue, for that matter.

So I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of this perception as my problem. I'm not the one allowing myself to be treated like an animal in public nor am I the one holding the leash. It's adolescent posturing writ publicly, it's bogus, and it's disingenuous.

So, people dress a certain way for attention and not because they like to dress like that? :rolleyes: I'm sorry but I fail to grasp that. Yes, a rare few might do that, but it seems to me like most just do it because they enjoy the look.

Oh no, rebels without a cause! We must make them have a cause because no one is allowed to exist or do anything without a reason!!

We don't care about how you feel about this because you know what, it doesn't matter in this case. We know you wouldn't "degrade" yourself like that and that's fine for you, but who are you to say what someone else can or cannot do? I see no problem with it, then again I have an extremely high tolerance for bullshit and stupidity.

Great, 9 pages of everyone agreeing with themselves -_-

I wasn't! I was posting an article to impose a level of common sense about this since everyone was treating the Daily Mail like gospel. *nods*

My brother wears a collar. He doesn't consider himself a pet, and he is most certainly not into BDSM. He just like how the collar looks. It disturbs me that Intangelon might consider this excessive attention seeking, lack of maturity, and a reason to abuse him. I don't even want to think of what treatment Intangelon might think my transgendered brother would deserve, especially when dressed as a woman in public.

I don't know, slap him on the ass and say, "get into the kitch bitch and make me my dinner! Snap snap!" :D

Just kidding.

The choke chain might not be the safest type of collar,
It isn't the safest type of anything, and anyone who wears one is a moron. If you want to play pet, get a regular leather collar, they're safer and don't look quite as stupid.
but then again, a large ring with a huge stone is a magnet for muggings...BAN THEM!
Third parties are yet another reason not to allow choke collars, and I'm glad you brought them up. If this couple were assaulted (say by the bus driver) she's placed herself in a position where she could be easily be caught and seriously injured.
I hope that guy and his stupid coat can protect them both.

2) I have routinely worn a collar, at times even in public, and been treated in ways that no doubt would offend your perception of basic human dignity. I happen to enjoy that, and consent to it. Your moral precepts do not get to negate my freedom of choice.


Tell us more! RAWR!:p

oh look, a one post troll. What a novelty. You are so clever, I bet you're the first perosn in the world to ever think of that!

Tool....

Good on this bus driver. Thousand bucks says there where seniors on this bus, probably young children as well. That kind of stuff can be left in privatized areas. If I was ever with my little cousin/niece/nephew. And he came on the bus, I wouldnt care about the bus driver. I'd keep him off myself with a kick to the chest. People who have actual lives and work for a living and have kids dont dress like that.


And to the Canadian woman who said she had a large education and no mental illness...Well as much as you think you dont have something mental going on (mind you, not an illness) you do have some abnormal about your...People arent supposed to enjoy that. And its cool if you do, just dont go flaunting it around town.

Good on this bus driver. Thousand bucks says there where seniors on this bus, probably young children as well. That kind of stuff can be left in privatized areas. If I was ever with my little cousin/niece/nephew. And he came on the bus, I wouldnt care about the bus driver. I'd keep him off myself with a kick to the chest. People who have actual lives and work for a living and have kids dont dress like that.


And to the Canadian woman who said she had a large education and no mental illness...Well as much as you think you dont have something mental going on (mind you, not an illness) you do have some abnormal about your...People arent supposed to enjoy that. And its cool if you do, just dont go flaunting it around town.

So you are opposed to children seeing people dressed in weird costumes? What value is there in sheltering children from reality?

Also you've never been to Hot Topic have you? People who dress like that do work for a living child.

Also people who kick other people in the chest because of what they are wearing should be locked up with every other violent criminal until they grow up or perish behind bars.

Also, what is wrong with a little abnormality in the world?

They should leave the leash at home, and keep that kind of thing in the bedroom. It's just plain indecent.

Good on this bus driver. Thousand bucks says there where seniors on this bus, probably young children as well. That kind of stuff can be left in privatized areas. If I was ever with my little cousin/niece/nephew. And he came on the bus, I wouldnt care about the bus driver. I'd keep him off myself with a kick to the chest. People who have actual lives and work for a living and have kids dont dress like that.


And to the Canadian woman who said she had a large education and no mental illness...Well as much as you think you dont have something mental going on (mind you, not an illness) you do have some abnormal about your...People arent supposed to enjoy that. And its cool if you do, just dont go flaunting it around town.

Ever read up on the cocktail of pretty snazzy chemicals you body releases when reacting to pain?

1) There is a difference between attention seeking and deserving abuse.

Sure. That's obvious. Those two idiots weren't abused. They tried to exercise their mild BDSM in public and were refuted. Seems rational to me. That crap belongs in private.

2) I have routinely worn a collar, at times even in public, and been treated in ways that no doubt would offend your perception of basic human dignity. I happen to enjoy that, and consent to it. Your moral precepts do not get to negate my freedom of choice.

Do you consent to it on public transportation? Freedom of choice ends where a flying chain hits me in the next seat up from you when the bus stops short. All they had to do was disconnect the leash for the duration of the trip for their own safety and for the consideration of others.

3) Exercising freedom of choice in this manner does not mean that you have given up your human rights, and others are now free to treat you as they see fit.

Ah, but she's chosen to be a dog. If she wishes to be treated thus, how can she retain "human" rights? Okay, splitting hairs, fine.

I don't know what the transit policy in the OP example was, but if it's like those I've seen, only service animals are allowed on board. So when she gets certified as a service dog, she's more than welcome on public transportation.

4) The only thing remotely pathological here is your apparent rabid hatred of a specific group of people which amounts to nothing more than bigotry. You do not know this couple, and yet you express hated for them.

Where did I express hatred? I can say "fuck them" on one issue (using public transport) without that meaning I hate them. I'm just as liberal as you are, Sin, and you ought to know that presupposing hatred is one of the reasons liberals get their bad rap.

5) The safety issues involved in her particular choice of collar are valid. Yet I suspect even if she worse a collar that could not choke her, you would still be blasting her.

You suspect incorrectly, as I've stated quite clearly earlier. She doesn't even need a different collar/leash. She needs to "become human" (or grow up) long enough to take the leash off and stow it for the duration of the trip.

I've got nothing against alternative lifestyles of any kind. I do think those engaging in them have to exercise a little common sense and decorum when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate in public.

bullshit.

[DELETE WHITE COLOR CODE]most likely:[DELETE WHITE COLOR CODE]{edited by Muravyets}
The bus driver refused them access simple because he was shocked by the leach.. asked the girl to remove it and she refused.
How cute, hiding the "most likely:" disclaimer under white type in your original. I've fixed it for you, for the sake of clarity.

Now that we have established that you don't know what you are talking about, why don't you go and read the thread and the linked articles about the incident.

Here's what actually did happen, according to two British newspapers:

1) The couple with the leash tried to board buses on several occasions.

2) They were denied entry on several occasions.

3) One bus driver, on several occasions, used abusive language towards them, including calling them "freaks" and the young lady a "dog."

4) It is alleged that this one verbally abusive driver also became physically aggressive towards them on one occasion, while he was off duty.

5) After consideration of the matter, the bus company has announced that the couple are welcome to use their buses, in their preferred style of dress, so long as the young lady removes the leash during the time she on board the bus. They say this is for safety reasons, and that strikes me as reasonable.

6) The bus company has apparently not yet announced what they intend to do about the abusive driver, but I think that is a separate matter of employee disciplinary measures. Personally, if it is true that he got physical with the couple without provocation, I think he should be fired.

7) As far as I am concerned this settles the matter of whether the goth couple were being discriminated against. They were. By that bus driver. But not by the bus company.

8) There is no indication in the accounts I have seen so far that indicate that any of the drivers asked the lady to remove the leash before this matter hit the media and the company itself spoke up about its policy, nor that the young lady refused to remove it on request. Nor is there any indication in the accounts that the goth couple did anything to provoke the abusive driver, other than look different.

Well, aside from people not being dogs, the overwhelmingly juvenile need for attention, and the complete hypocritical whining when they get the attention, nothing.

Nobody needs to be like everyone else, but these Emmy-award-winners are so desperate to be different, they conform to deliberate nonconformity. In short, they're rebels without a cause. Or a clue, for that matter.

So I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of this perception as my problem. I'm not the one allowing myself to be treated like an animal in public nor am I the one holding the leash. It's adolescent posturing writ publicly, it's bogus, and it's disingenuous.
So what? I mean, ye gods, the exact same could be said of any number of people, practicing any number of lifestyles, copping any number of attitudes, in any number of styles. Who gives a flying fuck?

All this goth/whatever/non-conformist/group of the moment hostility reminds me of a line I heard in a movie once. I can't remember what movie it was, but it was one guy asking another guy why he couldn't just let go of a thing that was bothering him a lot, and the line was something like:

"It's like you're in a rowboat on a sea of shit, and you pick out one turd out of all the shit floating all around you, and you say, 'This turd right here. THIS turd is really pissing me off. I'm gonna do something about THIS turd.'"

Why doesn't this thread have more pics??

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/smiley_needpics.gif

Basic human dignity?
Well, the bottom line on that, in my opinion, is that you do not get to define other people's dignity or self-respect.

That young lady claims to be happy with herself and her chosen lifestyle. It is not your place to judge her for what makes her happy. It is not your place to decide for her that her style of happiness is not acceptable to you.

To my mind, whether I like her lifestyle or not, I would say that if she is walking down the street, feeling good about herself, walking with confidence and pride, then leash or no leash, she is carrying herself with dignity.

Her dignity, however, gets attacked by some bigoted jackass who can't get control his own behavior, and can't stop staring at and thinking about other people enough to do his damned job and drive the damned bus, and creates unnecesary scenes in which he calls her insulting names.

http://images.imageturtle.com/users/2650/ex/38552_blogpost_1189020829391_142.jpg

PG-13 enough for you? :p

Doesn't the BDSM imply some sort of sexual gratification? Would this imply that the collar would be fine if it didn't have sexual connotations?
Personally, I do not consider a collar to have any more sexual connotations than any other kind of sexy clothes. If the problem was that the driver thought the collar was too sexy (um...more sexy than her half-naked breasts?), maybe that driver needs to get his mind out of the gutter and be reminded that he get paid to drive buses, not fantasize about the passengers.

i lol'd, but yeh it's wrong and the driver's a dickhead.

Ah, but she's chosen to be a dog. If she wishes to be treated thus, how can she retain "human" rights? Okay, splitting hairs, fine.

I don't know what the transit policy in the OP example was, but if it's like those I've seen, only service animals are allowed on board. So when she gets certified as a service dog, she's more than welcome on public transportation.

Please point out where she said she consented to such treatment by everybody. Your argument is the equivalent of "because a woman wanted to to have sex with her husband she wants to have sex with every guy on the planet.

What is wrong with you?

You suspect incorrectly, as I've stated quite clearly earlier. She doesn't even need a different collar/leash. She needs to "become human" (or grow up) long enough to take the leash off and stow it for the duration of the trip.

And you'd have a point, if someone asked her to take it off, and hse refused. In fact, it would appear, nobody made such a request from her.

moreover your nonsensical goalpost shifting really is amusing, considering a few posts ago you didn't say anything about "security", but rather that "BDSM should be kept in private".

Which has nothing to do with the safety risk a metal chain would pose, but everything to do with the fact you don't like to see it in public.

Well, tough shit.

I've got nothing against alternative lifestyles of any kind. I do think those engaging in them have to exercise a little common sense and decorum when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate in public.

No. She gets to wear whatever the fuck she wants to wear. If it's a security risk, then she could be asked to remove it. But you didn't advocate that. You said "BDSM should be kept in private". Nothing to do about safety, but everything to do with the fact you don't like to see it in public.

Well, again, tough shit.

I've travelled the same bus lines as those guys, you know. I lived in Sheffield for a while. When I was in full goth my hair was dyed and spiked, I was in full makeup, I would wear a tailor made leather and velvet shirt, spiked leather armbrace armour, PVC pants, huge boots, and a latex skirt.

<snip>

Wow.

*imagines*

Hmmm....

Says you.

You're entitled to your opinion. You aren't entitled to enforce it. Thankfully.

I was about to concede a "fair enough" until that bolded part. Instead:

Well, thanks for the snark. I don't recall dishing any to you, but it's okay if it's righteous indignation, huh?

Why is that, exactly? Every married person I know wears a wedding ring in public. Every engaged woman I know wears an engagement ring in public. Numerous religious people wear symbols and dresses of their religion, in public.

People make very public displays of their lifestyle choices all the time. How in the world is a woman wearing a collar in public because she views hereself as a "pet" any different than a woman wearing an engagement ring in public because that's a symbol that she is an engaged woman?

You're comparing a dog collar and leash to a wedding ring? Okay, so apt metaphor, but hardly the same deal, especially with regard to the woman's spinal health on crowded or potentially hostile streets. But you're all correct -- it's her life.

Cuz it's ICKY!!!!!

And one time I saw two guys kissing and I SO nearly threw up in my mouth....

Yeah, 'cause MY post track-record has me SO against homosexuality. Honestly, I'd have thought better of you.

I've travelled the same bus lines as those guys, you know. I lived in Sheffield for a while. When I was in full goth my hair was dyed and spiked, I was in full makeup, I would wear a tailor made leather and velvet shirt, spiked leather armbrace armour, PVC pants, huge boots, and a latex skirt.

I consider your attitude ridiculous and offensive. Even kinda stupid.

But overall, I don't mind - because you are just filled with pointless rhetoric, and I've actually had to PHYSICALLY fight people who thought the same shit you regurgitate, but thought they could make a better argument with their fists.

I always thought THOSE people should "grow the hell up and act like people". Ironic, eh?

I'd agree with you if you could point out where I said that anyone deserved to be beaten. Your get-up wouldn't have caused me any problem, save perhaps cramps from holding back laughter. I wouldn't have had a problem at all with it until you poked me with one of your spikes when the bus lurched to a stop or start.

I like how MY rhetoric is "pointless" and "shit" that I've "regurgitated", and yours is somehow enlightened. We're talking about practicality here, and elaborate long-chain costumes present a safety concern on a bus. The fact that I think they're incredibly stupid and a cry for attention is immaterial. I'd ask why you wouldn't seek attention for an accomplishment, creation, or thought as opposed to outlandish scraps of clothing, but that's just me.

My brother wears a collar. He doesn't consider himself a pet, and he is most certainly not into BDSM. He just like how the collar looks. It disturbs me that Intangelon might consider this excessive attention seeking, lack of maturity, and a reason to abuse him. I don't even want to think of what treatment Intangelon might think my transgendered brother would deserve, especially when dressed as a woman in public.

Alright, you can knock off the fake paranoia now. It's beneath you. It is excessive attention-seeking, but all he'd get from me is a failed attempt to stifle my uncontrollable laughter. Your tirade of disingenuous assumptions about what I might think or do is really childish, especially when you've made it abundantly clear that what I think or do means less than nothing. Your transgendered brother deserves the same consideration as anyone else. Which means that if he tried to board a bus with (what looked like in the OP photo) some SIX FEET of chain, I'd tell him to stow it in his rather fetching purse (assuming he'd carry one while dressed as a woman).

I'm sure Intangelon has dressed to impress before in his life. That's called attention seeking, possibly some sign of undiagnosed psychopathology.

I owe respect to Sinuhue -- to you I owe nothing. I don't give a flying monkey fuck what you think. I've "dressed to impress" to the point of making sure I wore ties to interviews where ties were expected, and wore my high-top basketball shoes to 3-on-3 tournaments. Got that, junior? You wanna snipe at me, you better bring something other than that weak shit.

I am a woman living in Canada, with a high level of education, no mental illness, and I enjoy being beaten black and blue, and treated like property.

It's the 21st century. Consent is the difference.

Okay, now I can say it cleanly:

FAIR ENOUGH.

So, people dress a certain way for attention and not because they like to dress like that? :rolleyes: I'm sorry but I fail to grasp that. Yes, a rare few might do that, but it seems to me like most just do it because they enjoy the look.

Oh no, rebels without a cause! We must make them have a cause because no one is allowed to exist or do anything without a reason!!

We don't care about how you feel about this because you know what, it doesn't matter in this case. We know you wouldn't "degrade" yourself like that and that's fine for you, but who are you to say what someone else can or cannot do? I see no problem with it, then again I have an extremely high tolerance for bullshit and stupidity.

Ignoring the flamy nature of your last bit, let me say that I must have come from the Land of Faux Goths then, 'cause my jeans-and-t-shirt mind held more darkness in it that all the Robert-Smith wannabees crawling all over the schools I went to. They weren't dark, they were mildly shodowy. They talked about killing themselves. I fucking TRIED, okay? So forgive me if seeing a shitload of emo assholes complaining about absolutely NOTHING and dressing in black, dyeing their spiked hair, whiting out their faces and bloody-painting their lips does absolutely nothing for me but produce uncontrollable derisive laughter. Darkness/pain/whatever the hell you wanna call it -- it doesn't need a dress code. Dress codes invite poseurs, and that's what the majority of these ebony-clad goth-lites are.

And you all know what? I think I'm ALLOWED this ONE irrational semi-demonization. You know why? Because, when it comes down to it, I WOULD HAVE LET THESE TWITS ON THE GODDAMNED BUS. I can't BELIEVE all of you chose to overlook that statement every time I typed it. Not only that, but nobody here has ever seen me react like this to any other "group" of any kind. And that's not even a reaction that's said "kill them" or even "give 'em a little shove". So I apologize to all you goth lovers and pampered pets out there. But I'm gonna laugh at you. But y'know what? I will beat the first person to suggest you should get beat up to the punch.

I'd transfer him to a less goth-heavy route. The 'burbs, for example.

AAAAaahahhhahaahaaa...yeah...that'll work...
http://www.lawnparty.net/moms_minivan_conformist.jpg

Ignoring the flamy nature of your last bit, let me say that I must have come from the Land of Faux Goths then, 'cause my jeans-and-t-shirt mind held more darkness in it that all the Robert-Smith wannabees crawling all over the schools I went to. They weren't dark, they were mildly shodowy. They talked about killing themselves. I fucking TRIED, okay? So forgive me if seeing a shitload of emo assholes complaining about absolutely NOTHING and dressing in black, dyeing their spiked hair, whiting out their faces and bloody-painting their lips does absolutely nothing for me but produce uncontrollable derisive laughter.

Those fucking posers weren't real, they only talked about dark shadowy things. I'm the REAL messed up ones. They only TALKED about killing themselves, I TRIED.

They weren't dark, I was dark! They were just pretending. They're just attention whores, but I am the real deal.

See, they were not nearly as "real" as I am. Me. ME. ME. I am the real one, I'm the genuine one, I'm the serious one. I'm so serious I'm going to bitch to strangers on the internet about those damned attention whores, and just to prove I'm the real deal I'm going to say that I had the guts to do what they couldn't.

Becuase I'm the real one. Not those fucking attention whores.

:rolleyes:

You're comparing a dog collar and leash to a wedding ring? Okay, so apt metaphor, but hardly the same deal, especially with regard to the woman's spinal health on crowded or potentially hostile streets. But you're all correct -- it's her life.


This little bit would make more sense if, again, you didn't just say:

They tried to exercise their mild BDSM in public and were refuted. Seems rational to me. That crap belongs in private.

So again, it seems you have no concern about safety. your objection doesn't have to do with endangerment of others. You just think "that crap" belongs in private.

Now, while I would agree that THIS particular chain did cause a risk to those around her on a bus, again, you've made it quite clear you don't care, and would have the same response if it were just a nylon leash, because "that crap belongs in private" and you don't like it in public.

Well, for the third time, tough shit.

What freaked me out here was that when I opened this thread the image was cut at the necks so I could see the faces but nothing else. Both faces look clearly male so I think "haha, a gay goth couple was too much for some poor conservative". Then I scroll down and discover the guy on the right is female, what a chock!:eek:

When it comes to deviating bedroom habits I think assault and battery should be illegal even with consent. I guess it is people with a similarly "narrow minded" opinions that are offended in this case but one can't assume there is a connection between wearing a leash and being abused or between sex games and real abuse. On any full bus there is probably someone who lives with an abusive partner and still stays with the jerk for many years, but doesn't wear a leash.

So there is nothing wrong with wearing a leash in public and discrimination against it shouldn't be allowed, even though I'd personally write both off as jerks and stay away from them if I met this couple. For safety they should be required to modify the leash so the chain detaches from the collar if it is pulled with a little force. Attach the chain to the leash with 2 strong magnets for example.

PS. While we're at prejudice towards goths. It would scare me half to death if a hot goth girl would ever hit on me. "Oh yeah she is hot... oh wait, her idea of love might involve medieval torture techniques, I gotta run, run!!"

Those fucking posers weren't real, ...

You're mean and funny. I like you. :)

I don't think our bus drivers should be the be-all and end-all of imposing morality. Then again, that's just me.

I owe respect to Sinuhue -- to you I owe nothing. I don't give a flying monkey fuck what you think. I've "dressed to impress" to the point of making sure I wore ties to interviews where ties were expected, and wore my high-top basketball shoes to 3-on-3 tournaments. Got that, junior? You wanna snipe at me, you better bring something other than that weak shit.




Be as whiny as you want about what I had to say in regard to your trash talking about how these BDSM goths were were attention seekers with psychopathological disorders.

You're just getting so upset because the truth of what I said hit so close to home.

I can't blame the bus driver for it, what a pair of depraved freaks. I'm 15 and I wouldn't say I'm prudish but that sort of shit isn't on. Particularly if there are little kids on the bus. If you want to do that sort of sick stuff, keep it behind closed doors.

Anyway, she wanted to be treated like a dog she got her wish - they don't let dogs on buses! Also, no surprise that they don't have jobs.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13394261']Also, no surprise that they don't have jobs.

That part might be due to them being students.
Might. I am not certain how the UK grantsystem for students works.

That part might be due to them being students.
If they're living in council housing on benefits, then they're not students, they're just wasters.

That part might be due to them being students.
Might. I am not certain how the UK grantsystem for students works.
They're on benefits and living in a council flat. Also planning to start a family, no doubt at society's expense. I don't see why they should be able to scrounge - perhaps if they dressed more like normal people they'd be able to get a job, but they choose not to. I think that's the equivalent of refusing to get a job.

Damn, the idea of that pair of freaks raising kids is terrifying!

Ignoring the flamy nature of your last bit, let me say that I must have come from the Land of Faux Goths then, 'cause my jeans-and-t-shirt mind held more darkness in it that all the Robert-Smith wannabees crawling all over the schools I went to. They weren't dark, they were mildly shodowy. They talked about killing themselves. I fucking TRIED, okay? So forgive me if seeing a shitload of emo assholes complaining about absolutely NOTHING and dressing in black, dyeing their spiked hair, whiting out their faces and bloody-painting their lips does absolutely nothing for me but produce uncontrollable derisive laughter. Darkness/pain/whatever the hell you wanna call it -- it doesn't need a dress code. Dress codes invite poseurs, and that's what the majority of these ebony-clad goth-lites are.

Oh my, a 'true' goth. How tragic. Perhaps you should allow your past to be left behind and not cloud your normally rational thinking.

And you all know what? I think I'm ALLOWED this ONE irrational semi-demonization. You know why? Because, when it comes down to it, I WOULD HAVE LET THESE TWITS ON THE GODDAMNED BUS.

Well, I'm glad you are intelligent enough to understand freedom of choice. But that doesn't excuse you from being laughed at for your irrational hatred.

Wow, this topic is getting pretty spiteful, if I do say so myself. Can we get back to discussing this as rational, mature adults?

You're mean and funny. I like you. :)

Years of practice my dear. YEARS of practice.

Isn't that more of a 'bondage' thing than a 'goth' thing though?

I'm reminded of that NS issue on this.

5) After consideration of the matter, the bus company has announced that the couple are welcome to use their buses, in their preferred style of dress, so long as the young lady removes the leash during the time she on board the bus. They say this is for safety reasons, and that strikes me as reasonable.

Agreed completely. Also agreed that this is not what the bus driver was thinking when he gave these idiots the bum's rush. And yes, I said "idiots" -- for fuck's sake, I've clearly acted like one on this particular issue, so I should be allowed insider-expert status.

Well, the bottom line on that, in my opinion, is that you do not get to define other people's dignity or self-respect.

That young lady claims to be happy with herself and her chosen lifestyle. It is not your place to judge her for what makes her happy. It is not your place to decide for her that her style of happiness is not acceptable to you.

To my mind, whether I like her lifestyle or not, I would say that if she is walking down the street, feeling good about herself, walking with confidence and pride, then leash or no leash, she is carrying herself with dignity.

Her dignity, however, gets attacked by some bigoted jackass who can't get control his own behavior, and can't stop staring at and thinking about other people enough to do his damned job and drive the damned bus, and creates unnecesary scenes in which he calls her insulting names.

The only problem I can see that might have a leg to stand on is this: if I'm a parent with a child riding the bus, I'm not going to enjoy trying to explain alternative lifestyles when the chreub asks why the lady was wearing a bikini and a leash. That said, the world is a weird place, and no insulation in the world prepares you for most of it.

AGREED that the driver was way out of line. Unsure about how terminal an offense it was unless there was indeed physical contact. Some people have been conditioned to see threat in such dress -- and there's enough evidence to warrant that fear, but not the automatic expulsion without cause.

Please point out where she said she consented to such treatment by everybody. Your argument is the equivalent of "because a woman wanted to to have sex with her husband she wants to have sex with every guy on the planet".

What is wrong with you?

So when anyone else talks to her, she's a person. When loverboy does, she's a dog. Check. Whatever.

You've dropped a false dichotomy on the thread like a giant turd, you've asked us all to swallow it, and there's something wrong with me? I'll pass.

And you'd have a point, if someone asked her to take it off, and hse refused. In fact, it would appear, nobody made such a request from her.

moreover your nonsensical goalpost shifting really is amusing, considering a few posts ago you didn't say anything about "security", but rather that "BDSM should be kept in private".

Which has nothing to do with the safety risk a metal chain would pose, but everything to do with the fact you don't like to see it in public.

Well, tough shit.

Wow, so touchy.

How is it shifting to honestly believe that a public display of BDSM-wear and behavior is inappropriate AND agree that there's a safety concern as well? You're coming apart at the seams, and the "tough talk" is not helping.

No. She gets to wear whatever the fuck she wants to wear. If it's a security risk, then she could be asked to remove it. But you didn't advocate that. You said "BDSM should be kept in private". Nothing to do about safety, but everything to do with the fact you don't like to see it in public.

Well, again, tough shit.

I did advocate she remove it. Twice. I ALSO advocated that BDSM should be kept in private. Those two viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. I'll go further -- I think that people who dress merely for shock value are among the least creative people in society. Your defense of them explains to me why you're a lawyer.

Those fucking posers weren't real, they only talked about dark shadowy things. I'm the REAL messed up ones. They only TALKED about killing themselves, I TRIED.

They weren't dark, I was dark! They were just pretending. They're just attention whores, but I am the real deal.

See, they were not nearly as "real" as I am. Me. ME. ME. I am the real one, I'm the genuine one, I'm the serious one. I'm so serious I'm going to bitch to strangers on the internet about those damned attention whores, and just to prove I'm the real deal I'm going to say that I had the guts to do what they couldn't.

Becuase I'm the real one. Not those fucking attention whores.

:rolleyes:

Wow. Looks like the only nerve that's been touched here is yours.

I'm sorry if my confession seemed like grandstanding, but the point I was trying to make, and which your mockery fails to erode, is that my personal problem with assholes in black is that the vast majority of them are me-too-ists and about as deep as puddles. They dress that way 'cause it scares the squares. Period, the end, that's all. If believing that behavior to be shallow earns me your scorn, then by all means, pile it on. It clearly is cathartic for you.

This little bit would make more sense if, again, you didn't just say:

BDSM should be kept in private

So again, it seems you have no concern about safety. your objection doesn't have to do with endangerment of others. You just think "that crap" belongs in private.

Now, while I would agree that THIS particular chain did cause a risk to those around her on a bus, again, you've made it quite clear you don't care, and would have the same response if it were just a nylon leash, because "that crap belongs in private" and you don't like it in public.

Well, for the third time, tough shit.

I don't care. Not a single micro-dot. That crap DOES belong in private, AND the leash was a safety concern. See? They both exist in the same sentence without any matter-antimatter explosion. You seem to be focused on shit. Corprophagia belongs in private, too, just in case.

(See? I can be unreasonably nasty, too. It belittles me just like it belittles you.)

Oh my, a 'true' goth. How tragic. Perhaps you should allow your past to be left behind and not cloud your normally rational thinking.



Well, I'm glad you are intelligent enough to understand freedom of choice. But that doesn't excuse you from being laughed at for your irrational hatred.

Well golly-gee, forgive me my one slip. Honestly, it's like NSG is this place where, if you post one way for a long time, you are ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED to fuck up and have an opposing viewpoint, no matter what the reason.

To all of you opposing me here, even you, Neo Art, whose legal expertise and rationale I gladly bow down to in every other thread, I APOLOGIZE. People who do things just because they shock have ALWAYS been a pet peeve of mine, okay? I can't seem to get over it, so I APOLOGIZE TO YOU ALL. I get VERY irrational about it, and to be frank, apart from the reason -- the serious reason -- I mentioned earlier about poseurs, I honestly couldn't tell you why. Perhaps it's true that I am the one with the psychopathology. I've never had it come out in counseling, so maybe I'll bring it up. Hell, maybe I'm a giant poseur and haven't realized it yet.

Maybe at 6000 posts, I've suddenly decided that I'm going to open up a hell of a lot more in NSG (good Lord, why?) because I don't feel that I even have a personality, and in a way, it's oddly flattering to see that one or two of you have reminded me that I'm recognizable for something.

It could even be that I'm secretly jealous of those who walk around be-spiked, be-darkened, and black-clad (I sure as hell wouldn't be jealous of their skin or their towels, but laundry would be easier...).

Wow, this topic is getting pretty spiteful, if I do say so myself. Can we get back to discussing this as rational, mature adults?

In NSG, are you nuts?

To conclude: those I respect, Neesika (Sinuhue), Neo Art, Muravyets, and yes, even Sumamba, and Extreme Ironing, one last time:

I apologize. This issue gets under my skin, and I'm sorry I let it out here.

-NdL

It is a safety issue.
It is a security issue.
It could potentially be abusive.


So I think he's in the wrong. You don't have the right to walk your wife, or anyone else, on a leash.

Thanks. No need to apologize to me. I was being a complete ass :P :D:fluffle:

Well golly-gee, forgive me my one slip. Honestly, it's like NSG is this place where, if you post one way for a long time, you are ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED to fuck up and have an opposing viewpoint, no matter what the reason.

To all of you opposing me here, even you, Neo Art, whose legal expertise and rationale I gladly bow down to in every other thread, I APOLOGIZE. People who do things just because they shock have ALWAYS been a pet peeve of mine, okay? I can't seem to get over it, so I APOLOGIZE TO YOU ALL. I get VERY irrational about it, and to be frank, apart from the reason -- the serious reason -- I mentioned earlier about poseurs, I honestly couldn't tell you why. Perhaps it's true that I am the one with the psychopathology. I've never had it come out in counseling, so maybe I'll bring it up. Hell, maybe I'm a giant poseur and haven't realized it yet.

Maybe at 6000 posts, I've suddenly decided that I'm going to open up a hell of a lot more in NSG (good Lord, why?) because I don't feel that I even have a personality, and in a way, it's oddly flattering to see that one or two of you have reminded me that I'm recognizable for something.

It could even be that I'm secretly jealous of those who walk around be-spiked, be-darkened, and black-clad (I sure as hell wouldn't be jealous of their skin or their towels, but laundry would be easier...).


To conclude: those I respect, Neesika (Sinuhue), Neo Art, Muravyets, and yes, even Sumamba, and Extreme Ironing, one last time:

I apologize. This issue gets under my skin, and I'm sorry I let it out here.

-NdL

:fluffle: Don't worry about it, I tend to let nothing too extreme out in general, be it passion or anger, but perhaps that gives me a less interesting persona.

Still, you're always my favourite classical music geek on here :)

meh, i don't even see why its a security risk. what's the deal there?


but then i haven't read the (whole) thread...

i'd have let em on

She called herself a dog, so she deserves to be treated like one. No dogs aloud.

meh, i don't even see why its a security risk. what's the deal there?


but then i haven't read the (whole) thread...

i'd have let em on

I would've let 'em on, but not without wondering why the girl's face looks so much like a boy's. Scheisse, that's creepy.

1) I love his jacket.
2) The leash might be a safety issue on the bus -- either someone could trip on it, or a metal chain could be used as a weapon.
3) Abusive language/physicality from the bus driver, if it happened, should be addressed.

Exhibit A: The scum of society. Perhaps one morning I shall awake to find them to have perished from the earth, and more importantly, from hanging around the movie theater section of my mall.

Fuckin' freaks.

If they like to go "walkies" so much why don't they all go walk themselves off a cliff. And not survive the fall. By falling into the eternal pit from Mortal Combat.

They should leave the leash at home, and keep that kind of thing in the bedroom. It's just plain indecent.

Why?

No, seriously, explain exactly what is indecent about a leash. I'm curious.

That goes for all of the people on this thread who have stated their opinions about how disgusting, immoral, etc. BDSM, D/s, and such are. I'm genuinely curious how you justify this position. Ditto for those of you who believe that consenting to let one person treat you as a pet entails consenting to let [i]everyone[/i[ treat you as such. Admittedly, it's a bit of a threadjack, but the actual issue appears to have been resolved a good 7 or 8 pages ago, anyway. :p

Exhibit A: The scum of society. Perhaps one morning I shall awake to find them to have perished from the earth, and more importantly, from hanging around the movie theater section of my mall.

Fuckin' freaks.

If they like to go "walkies" so much why don't they all go walk themselves off a cliff. And not survive the fall. By falling into the eternal pit from Mortal Combat.

You're always a good laugh, Atty, what with your wild, hormone-induced posts of bile, and your hilarious misspellings of popular things. :p

Now that we have established....What you think you have established.. and what you did actually establish are two separate issues.
.
They (bus company) say this is for safety reasons, and that strikes me as reasonable.They (bus company) say this is for safety reasons, and that strikes me as Bullshit.






its all about her body wear, more specifically her leash.
.
I've fixed it for you, for the sake of clarity.
thank you ;)
.
How cute,"cute" is my middle name.
My other names are ## OD arrogant Motherfucker Pinko commie fassist Nazi Elitist etc etc etc
:D

Unless the girl is being forced to act like a doggy I have no problem with it. The bus driver can't tell who can or can't go on property he doesn't own.

I rode you hard, Intangelon, not because I dislike you, but rather because I do actually have quite a bit of respect for you, and this...odd blind spot sort of shocked me. It seemed very uncharacteristic of you. I wanted to see what it was based in, and I suppose from force of NSG posting habit, I thought the best way to get at the truth would be to badger you relentlessly until it spilled out...sorry, perhaps not the best way to go about it :P I DID ask, in my first post...I suppose I just didn't understand the answer.

I'm not a huge fan of any number of subcultures...but I long ago stopped caring enough to feel derisive towards them...for the most part. I mean, there are exceptions, or times when I'm just a little less charitable. Part of it comes from truly believing that I can't really judge when I don't know these people.

I noted that you said you wouldn't have prevented them from getting on the bus...but it did bother me that you were still okay with stereotyping them, and disliking them despite knowing next to nothing about them. I hold you to a higher standard than other posters who shall remain nameless (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394725&postcount=202):p

In any case, sorry it got mean, I was more into the issue itself than actually directing my ire against you, k?

Nuh uh, you are soooo wrong.
How on earth can you be turned on by that?
I mean it's like selling your self by how you look, sure it helps but don't go over the top.
so to conclude my argument you are so wrong a whole new level of wrong is devoted to you, called Groveness.

Has it occurred to you that your opinion is neither more nor less relevant than his?

Considerably less when it comes to being expert on what turns Wilgrove on?

What you think you have established.. and what you did actually establish are two separate issues.
.
Like I said:
They (bus company) say this is for safety reasons, and that strikes me as Bullshit.





its all about her body wear, more specifically her leash.
You are entitled to your opinion. I stand by my reading of the situation that the safety reason is not bullshit and that the discrimination was done by the driver, not by his employers.

.
thank you ;)
.
"cute" is my middle name.
My other names are ## OD arrogant Motherfucker Pinko commie fassist Nazi Elitist etc etc etc
:D
Cute is as cute does, and white type is really not that cute when it is overdone.

I grew up in NYC where nobody drives, and everybody uses public transportation. I spent the first 31 years of my life sharing space -- often with seriously uncomfortable closeness -- with hookers, homeless people, pervs,.... and people who at least appeared ordinary on the surface (but then, Ted Bundy looked normal too).

And yet we all managed to share space without frightening each other. You know what the most important social lesson of my childhood was?

Yea. Shoot first. Discriminate later.

Agreed completely. Also agreed that this is not what the bus driver was thinking when he gave these idiots the bum's rush. And yes, I said "idiots" -- for fuck's sake, I've clearly acted like one on this particular issue, so I should be allowed insider-expert status.



The only problem I can see that might have a leg to stand on is this: if I'm a parent with a child riding the bus, I'm not going to enjoy trying to explain alternative lifestyles when the chreub asks why the lady was wearing a bikini and a leash. That said, the world is a weird place, and no insulation in the world prepares you for most of it.

AGREED that the driver was way out of line. Unsure about how terminal an offense it was unless there was indeed physical contact. Some people have been conditioned to see threat in such dress -- and there's enough evidence to warrant that fear, but not the automatic expulsion without cause.

<snip>
I grew up in NYC where nobody drives, and everybody uses public transportation. I spent the first 31 years of my life sharing space -- often with seriously uncomfortable closeness -- with hookers, homeless people, pervs, criminals, gang members, punks, goths, drag queens, BDSM masters and slaves, unmedicated paranoid schizophrenics (and all their invisible friends), white supremacist skinheads, black supremacist New Israelites (don't ask), Zionist supremacist whatever-they-called-themselves-that-week, religious nuts of every conceivable variety (often practicing their rituals during their morning commutes and sometimes staring at me with open hostility because I was obviously not a member of their club), as well as families with small children, suburban shoppers, shell-shocked tourists, and people who at least appeared ordinary on the surface (but then, Ted Bundy looked normal too).

And yet we all managed to share space without frightening each other. You know what the most important social lesson of my childhood was? The thing that was pounded into my head by repetition over and over and over, right up there with "don't take candy from strangers"?

It was: "Don't stare at people. Don't point at people. Don't comment aloud about other people. Those things are rude. Don't do them."

It's amazing, actually, how you learn not to care about what other people wear, do or are. It is not hard at all to learn that you don't have to explain alternative lifestyles to little kids, and that your kids will not be traumatized if you, as their parent who they looked to for clues, are not traumatized by the sight of unusual-looking people. And if you give it even the least little effort, it's actually not that hard to learn not to judge a book by its cover. In fact, it becomes downright easy after the first time you go out on a date with the most ordinary, normal-looking, clean-cut, wholesome dude, only to find out -- way too soon -- what a scary-ass freak he really is.

I guess, based on my upbringing, I always prefer weirdos I can see coming to those that can sneak up on me. I prefer people who are honest about themselves to those who hide their true selves under a veneer of conformism. I would take a pretentious goth over a hypocritical "normal" person as a neighbor, any day of the week.

EDIT: Oh, and as for the hostility of this thread, thank you for the apology for losing your cool a little, but you really don't have to apologize to me. I did not take any of your comments to me personally, and I didn't read your arguments with other people (you know, that "don't stare" thing). ;)

I rode you hard, Intangelon, not because I dislike you, but rather because I do actually have quite a bit of respect for you, and this...odd blind spot sort of shocked me. It seemed very uncharacteristic of you. I wanted to see what it was based in, and I suppose from force of NSG posting habit, I thought the best way to get at the truth would be to badger you relentlessly until it spilled out...sorry, perhaps not the best way to go about it :P I DID ask, in my first post...I suppose I just didn't understand the answer.

I'm not a huge fan of any number of subcultures...but I long ago stopped caring enough to feel derisive towards them...for the most part. I mean, there are exceptions, or times when I'm just a little less charitable. Part of it comes from truly believing that I can't really judge when I don't know these people.

I noted that you said you wouldn't have prevented them from getting on the bus...but it did bother me that you were still okay with stereotyping them, and disliking them despite knowing next to nothing about them. I hold you to a higher standard than other posters who shall remain nameless (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394725&postcount=202):p

In any case, sorry it got mean, I was more into the issue itself than actually directing my ire against you, k?

No offense taken -- I'd have to be an even more Mister-Equator-sized jackass to not see I was completely off base.

Like I said, I honestly don't know why the particular idiosyncrasy of dressing outlandishly for it's own sake or for the sake of shock value sets me off (the only other thing that comes close is body modification -- I confess that I just don't get it, but that's no reason to post mindless vitriol). It's my fault for PWI (posting while irritated); I should have just ignored the whole thing and sauntered off. It doesn't matter if I'd have let them on the bus if I were harboring such bile.

I appreciate your post, Sin, as I have always appreciated your words from the first time I read them. You've got nothing to apologize for -- I deserved that bitch-slap, and, in the words of my favorite Wolfrider, "if it leaves a scar, I'll keep it."

That bus driver is in the wrong. My dad works for the Manhattan Transit as a Bus supervisor, its a rule that a bus driver CAN NOT not let people on a bus, or kick them off a bus.

I grew up in NYC where nobody drives, and everybody uses public transportation. I spent the first 31 years of my life sharing space -- often with seriously uncomfortable closeness -- with hookers, homeless people, pervs, criminals, gang members, punks, goths, drag queens, BDSM masters and slaves, unmedicated paranoid schizophrenics (and all their invisible friends), white supremacist skinheads, black supremacist New Israelites (don't ask), Zionist supremacist whatever-they-called-themselves-that-week, religious nuts of every conceivable variety (often practicing their rituals during their morning commutes and sometimes staring at me with open hostility because I was obviously not a member of their club), as well as families with small children, suburban shoppers, shell-shocked tourists, and people who at least appeared ordinary on the surface (but then, Ted Bundy looked normal too).

And yet we all managed to share space without frightening each other. You know what the most important social lesson of my childhood was? The thing that was pounded into my head by repetition over and over and over, right up there with "don't take candy from strangers"?

It was: "Don't stare at people. Don't point at people. Don't comment aloud about other people. Those things are rude. Don't do them."

It's amazing, actually, how you learn not to care about what other people wear, do or are. It is not hard at all to learn that you don't have to explain alternative lifestyles to little kids, and that your kids will not be traumatized if you, as their parent who they looked to for clues, are not traumatized by the sight of unusual-looking people. And if you give it even the least little effort, it's actually not that hard to learn not to judge a book by its cover. In fact, it becomes downright easy after the first time you go out on a date with the most ordinary, normal-looking, clean-cut, wholesome dude, only to find out -- way too soon -- what a scary-ass freak he really is.

I guess, based on my upbringing, I always prefer weirdos I can see coming to those that can sneak up on me. I prefer people who are honest about themselves to those who hide their true selves under a veneer of conformism. I would take a pretentious goth over a hypocritical "normal" person as a neighbor, any day of the week.

EDIT: Oh, and as for the hostility of this thread, thank you for the apology for losing your cool a little, but you really don't have to apologize to me. I did not take any of your comments to me personally, and I didn't your arguments with other people (you know, that "don't stare" thing). ;)

A magnificent and magnanimous manifesto (who am I, Frank Miller?). You are, of course, right past 100% correct on that. I wish I'd been raised in New York or some large city. I was raised in the sub-suburbs of Seattle: rural pastures that were slowly becoming bedroom communities for Boeing workers and the other commuters. As such, honky sameness was all I got to see from age 8 on. Before then, I'd lived in Fresno and East Lansing. I'd seen enough diversity in the San Joaquin Valley and many of my father's friends at MSU were un-honky. I had a gay babysitter in Fresno (who played a musically odd combination of the Man of La Mancha soundtrack and Earth, Wind & Fire whenever he sat for us).

But from 4th grade on, it was lily-white rednecks. The only defense I had were my parents, SOME of my teachers, books and PBS. I never had to be taught not to stare because, frankly, there wasn't much to stare at. As such, the proto-goth crowd of Robert Smith/The Cure fans were as "alternative" as I ever saw until college. I had no trouble accepting race, color, belief, sexuality, whatever. But for some reason, gothy appearances and body mods slipped through. I feel extremely foolish for having let that vestige of my past out of its cage. So despite your generosity, I did feel like I owed you an apology, and thanks for "not staring" at my dumb ass.

I want a girl who will be my pet... so I say the bus driver was right only cause I'm jealous of that guy and thus very spiteful!

Wow, all that stuff I posted to Intangelon is giving me memory flashbacks to NYC. You know, because little kids will stare at unusual-looking people, and I remember my mom whispering to me not to stare because it's rude, and making me wait until we got off the train to ask my questions and just answering me with things like, "Some people are different. It isn't really important, and it doesn't change what kind of people they are. So you just mind your own business and always be polite yourself."

And I distinctly recall often seeing parents with children faced with some outlandish-looking fellow citizen, and the small child staring in absolute gawk-mode, and the parent trying to distract them -- even to the point of putting a hand over their eyes to break the stare -- and even smiling at the "freak" and murmuring apologies for the child's stare. And I remember the "freaks" smiling back and murmuring back things like, "Oh, don't worry about it. He/she is an adorable child." And so on. I witnessed things like that many, many times in my life.

Maybe this is why it amazes me that so many people -- not Intangelon because his reaction was really about something else, I think, maybe -- feel so free not only to judge people but to denounce and verbally abuse them to their faces. It is just not the way I was raised to think civilized people behaved.

Well, if they claim to be Goths, the driver might have mistaken them for barbarians from the Germanic tribes. I mean, what if the guy was Alaric the Visigoth on his way to sack Rome again?

Manhattan Transit?

You sure about that?

I've heard of the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority), the BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit line, only trains), the IND (Independent Subway) and the IRT (Interboro Rapid transit). Never heard of Manhattan Transit.

try to remember how plain-vanilla ordinary Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and David Berkowitz looked. Maybe it will help reestablish perspective about what is scary in life. It works for me. :)

It might have worked for you but I'm now terrified of Smunkeeville

A magnificent and magnanimous manifesto (who am I, Frank Miller?). You are, of course, right past 100% correct on that. I wish I'd been raised in New York or some large city. I was raised in the sub-suburbs of Seattle: rural pastures that were slowly becoming bedroom communities for Boeing workers and the other commuters. As such, honky sameness was all I got to see from age 8 on. Before then, I'd lived in Fresno and East Lansing. I'd seen enough diversity in the San Joaquin Valley and many of my father's friends at MSU were un-honky. I had a gay babysitter in Fresno (who played a musically odd combination of the Man of La Mancha soundtrack and Earth, Wind & Fire whenever he sat for us).

But from 4th grade on, it was lily-white rednecks. The only defense I had were my parents, SOME of my teachers, books and PBS. I never had to be taught not to stare because, frankly, there wasn't much to stare at. As such, the proto-goth crowd of Robert Smith/The Cure fans were as "alternative" as I ever saw until college. I had no trouble accepting race, color, belief, sexuality, whatever. But for some reason, gothy appearances and body mods slipped through. I feel extremely foolish for having let that vestige of my past out of its cage. So despite your generosity, I did feel like I owed you an apology, and thanks for "not staring" at my dumb ass.
No problem. :D

We all have our little hang-ups and they are nothing to be ashamed of, as long as we keep control of them. There is no rule that says you have to like goths and body-mods, but if you find yourself getting overly bothered by your distate for them, try to remember how plain-vanilla ordinary Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and David Berkowitz looked. Maybe it will help reestablish perspective about what is scary in life. It works for me. :)

Manhattan Transit?

You sure about that?

I've heard of the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority), the BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit line, only trains), the IND (Independent Subway) and the IRT (Interboro Rapid transit). Never heard of Manhattan Transit.

Maybe he meant Manhattan Transfer (http://www.google.com/musica?aid=SxeC0AK-p2F&sa=X&oi=music&ct=result)? Or even Manhattan Transfer (http://books.google.com/books?id=lb3Vm0wuyCAC&dq=manhattan+transfer&ots=qUniXaLU2y&sig=520JUYsoGq7kaqzen6SbaUE4Wkg&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Manhattan+Transfer&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail&pgis=1)?

No problem. :D

We all have our little hang-ups and they are nothing to be ashamed of, as long as we keep control of them. There is no rule that says you have to like goths and body-mods, but if you find yourself getting overly bothered by your distate for them, try to remember how plain-vanilla ordinary Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and David Berkowitz looked. Maybe it will help reestablish perspective about what is scary in life. It works for me. :)

I shall. Thank you.

A pretty medieval one, at that. Viewing a woman as a sort of pet, more akin to a dog or cat? C'mon. What century are we living in?

The operative concept, perhaps, would be that this young lady, herself, is the one that identifies as a 'pet'.

There are nu universal 'life choices' that work for absolutely everyone. This girl finds that she likes surrendering a lot of the responsibilities of her relationship, in order to be 'kept' and cherished. That's her choice.

There's where your argument falls down - she has chosen her identity.

Doesn't the BDSM imply some sort of sexual gratification? Would this imply that the collar would be fine if it didn't have sexual connotations?

No. BDSM can involve sex, but doesn't have to. There are as many different flavours of dominance and submission as there are relationships. As many flavours of bondage and discipline as there are people wanting that kind of motivation. As many flavours of sadism and masochism as there are people willing to explore the variety of stimuli a body can respond to.

But, on the other hand... girls in high-heels or short skirts can be a matter of gratification... are we going to start policing those, too?

I hope that guy and his stupid coat can protect them both.

You didn't like his coat? I quite liked it, actually.

She's cute.

(Least helpful post ever? Maybe, maybe...)

Sure. That's obvious. Those two idiots weren't abused. They tried to exercise their mild BDSM in public and were refuted. Seems rational to me. That crap belongs in private.


When vanillas get kicked of busses for holding hands, your argument is worth something.


Do you consent to it on public transportation? Freedom of choice ends where a flying chain hits me in the next seat up from you when the bus stops short.


That's a bullshit argument, and you know it.

The chain is fixed at one end, and held at the other. Even in an emergency stop, you've got a higher risk of being 'hit' by a flying baby, briefcase or shopping bag.

Are you in favour of banning young moms?


All they had to do was disconnect the leash for the duration of the trip for their own safety and for the consideration of others.


Worthless argument, and dishonest. It's not 'safety', it's making conservative people feel comfortable.


Ah, but she's chosen to be a dog. If she wishes to be treated thus, how can she retain "human" rights? Okay, splitting hairs, fine.


She chose to be a pet... she didn't choose not to be human.


You suspect incorrectly, as I've stated quite clearly earlier. She doesn't even need a different collar/leash. She needs to "become human" (or grow up) long enough to take the leash off and stow it for the duration of the trip.


She is human. A collar doesn't make you subhuman.


I've got nothing against alternative lifestyles of any kind. I do think those engaging in them have to exercise a little common sense and decorum when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate in public.

Exactly. True colours on display: 'decorum', 'isn't appropriate'.

Man-up and admit when your problem is about how it makes you feel.

I'd agree with you if you could point out where I said that anyone deserved to be beaten.


That's why I said your comments were less of a problem. Your attacks are weak words.


Your get-up wouldn't have caused me any problem, save perhaps cramps from holding back laughter.


I look motherfucking great, actually.

You'd want me.


I wouldn't have had a problem at all with it until you poked me with one of your spikes when the bus lurched to a stop or start.


No more likely than the umbrella you might be holding.


I like how MY rhetoric is "pointless" and "shit" that I've "regurgitated", and yours is somehow enlightened.


Because I doubt you've been beaten to the ground by large mobs of drunk goths.

You don't like what looks different to your conservative tolerances, fine. Let's leave it there. You sit and seethe in private, and we're both happy.

She's cute.

(Least helpful post ever? Maybe, maybe...)

I can top it.

(I just did. :) )

Isn't that more of a 'bondage' thing than a 'goth' thing though?

I'm reminded of that NS issue on this.

In the UK (at least), goth culture and fetish culture are pretty close, and overlap.

Hitting a goth night in a Sheffield club means (or did mean, at Hallam SU anyhow) you're probably actually getting a goth/fetish/LGBT event... with gothy music.

So I think he's in the wrong. You don't have the right to walk your wife, or anyone else, on a leash.

Yes you do.

Exhibit A: The scum of society. Perhaps one morning I shall awake to find them to have perished from the earth, and more importantly, from hanging around the movie theater section of my mall.

Fuckin' freaks.

If they like to go "walkies" so much why don't they all go walk themselves off a cliff. And not survive the fall. By falling into the eternal pit from Mortal Combat.

Funny. I'd call homophobes or racists, or child-abusers... something real... 'the scum of society'.

Someone who likes to wear black and reads Emily Dickinson? Not the worst humanity can manage, in my book.

Is it really any more icky than cuddling and kissing in public? Is it really grosser than 8 inches of underwear?

I swear back when I dealt blackjack at the local casino, I saw one kid hoist up his baggy shirt to reveal eight inches of red designer skivvies above the waistband of his jeans which were sitting about mid-buttocks. He grabs his waistband, pulls them DOWN!!! in the back so his whole ass is visible and then drops his shirt again. At that point, why wear pants? Just wear a mumu. :p

A thin steel chain would look pretty attractive after that :p

They should leave the leash at home, and keep that kind of thing in the bedroom. It's just plain indecent.

"I don't like it" isn't a valid reason to bar someone from a public place, especially a bus. Safety- of which the collar-and-leash combination poses a risk to- is a reason, but that's the only way I could see justification for this kind of action. I don't think the bus driver actually stated that as his reasons, though.

Seriously, I don't see how this is worse than the twats who play their music so damn loud that I have to hear it

I have seen drivers tell the musicians to stop their playing and I do believe it is somewhere in the TTC's bylaws (probably under the "don't make a disturbance" stipulation). Might be something to take up with the driver if it happens again.

that England just avoids entirely by not really having one (I am being yelled at here over IM so I should note that britain does have a constitution, it's a very lovely one, it just doesn't entirely operate the way the US constitution does in matters like this. But that doesn't stop it from being very lovely indeed).

Isn't Britain's constitution "unwritten"? That's how I understand it.

Well she is only 19, the bloke looks kinda familiar to me though.

This guy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_Filth)

So you're telling me, that if you had a woman dress up in a dog collar and a black suit that shows about 40 to 60% of her breast and has straps all over it, you wouldn't be turned on? Really? Wow....you need help! :p

I'll take Neo Art's position and echo the "butter face" comment.

My question is...was he scooping?

LOL

I want a girl who will be my pet... so I say the bus driver was right only cause I'm jealous of that guy and thus very spiteful!

I don't think I'd want a girl like that...Tasha Maltby says she doesn't cook or clean, making me think she's egocentric and controlling, expecting the guy to do literally everything for her. Not my cup of tea but if it floats Dani Graves' boat and he's happy then I have no issues with their relationship.

Well, if they claim to be Goths, the driver might have mistaken them for barbarians from the Germanic tribes. I mean, what if the guy was Alaric the Visigoth on his way to sack Rome again?

LOL...they're kind of going the wrong way for that, aren't they? :p

Dude, I am pretty tolerant, but that's degrading and downright wrong (this coming from the most left-wing person on this forum).

Dude, I am pretty tolerant, but that's degrading and downright wrong (this coming from the most left-wing person on this forum).

Note that *she* is the one who proposed and wanted it.

What is your stance on the more... well, for a lack of a better word "fundamentalist" Christian women who believe they should be subservient to men ?

Dude, I am pretty tolerant, but that's degrading and downright wrong (this coming from the most left-wing person on this forum).

How is it degrading if it is her choice?

I see nothing 'wrong' with it... I know of no moral code that decries the right of the individual to wear a leash, should they choose.

If you think such attire 'degrading' and 'wrong', well, perhaps you're not as 'tolerant' as you thought?

(I also find myself wondering how you measure your 'left-wing-y-ness' against others... and what that really has to do with the subject...)

Note that *she* is the one who proposed and wanted it.

What is your stance on the more... well, for a lack of a better word "fundamentalist" Christian women who believe they should be subservient to men ?
Just because someone willingly agrees to degrade their own personal dignity and self-respect, that makes it better? I think it makes very little difference, you gotta be either brainwashed to do it or simply asking for this kind of reaction, so they can say in return 'fascist!111'.

Deport all emos to Siberia, immediately.

Just because someone willingly agrees to degrade their own personal dignity and self-respect, that makes it better? I think it makes very little difference, you gotta be either brainwashed to do it or simply asking for this kind of reaction, so they can say in return 'fascist!111'.

Deport all emos to Siberia, immediately.

I don't recall the article saying anywhere that the young lady in question felt she had compromised her 'personal dignity' or 'delf-respect'.

Looking at the source picture, she seems fairly content... even proud? of her appearance and circumstance. She certainly doesn't seem to feel she is beign degraded - indeed, she seems to be saying she is folowing her OWN choices, and that she's more than happy to be accomodated in the manner in which she is being.

The degradation, then - appears to be an illusion - you seem to be superimposing YOUR beliefs over her, and basing your responses on an inequity she seems content to deny.

Who should we believe? Her... or you?

Oh yes. Freedom of choice does not mean "freedom to choose what Eureka Australis approves".

I disagree, it's these kind of rotten liberals who promote sectarianism in society for the sake of it.

Just because someone willingly agrees to degrade their own personal dignity and self-respect, that makes it better?

Oh yes. Freedom of choice does not mean "freedom to choose what Eureka Australis approves".

I disagree, it's these kind of rotten liberals who promote sectarianism in society for the sake of it.

This is some kind of 'individuality should be subsumed by the moral majority' angle?

I say individuals have the right to individuality. You can call that 'sectarianism' if you like... others might say it's just rejecting the apathetic mainstream.

I wish I knew what the driver said.

If the guy wasn't actually holding the leash, I wouldn't have any issues with it. However, I can understand the driver's safety concerns if the guy was holding the leash. Just as a driver wouldn't normally let disorderly, drunk, yelling or abusive people on the bus in order to keep the other patrons safe, it's understandable that he wouldn't let a couple engaged in some sort of physical abuse on the bus either. However, if the judgement was made purely on their fashion sense, appearance or culture, they deserved the right to be allowed on the bus.

This is some kind of 'individuality should be subsumed by the moral majority' angle?

I say individuals have the right to individuality. You can call that 'sectarianism' if you like... others might say it's just rejecting the apathetic mainstream.
On the contrary, the true expression of the individual comes from expression of it's worth and necessary (and interdependent) cooperation with everyone else.

I disagree, it's these kind of rotten liberals who promote sectarianism in society for the sake of it.

Would everything be better if you were the overlord telling people what to do and wear ?

On the contrary, the true expression of the individual comes from expression of it's worth and necessary (and interdependent) cooperation with everyone else.

That is one view, yes.

Would everything be better if you were the overlord telling people what to do and wear ?
No, the majority is fine with me.


That is one view, yes.

Actually I have have nil respect for such attention-seeking freaks who act differently because they can.

Note that *she* is the one who proposed and wanted it.

What is your stance on the more... well, for a lack of a better word "fundamentalist" Christian women who believe they should be subservient to men ?

I don't think she's actually subserviant at all...it's quite clear from both articles that Tasha Maltby makes Dani Graves do absolutely everything for her...the whole "dog" thing is just, for the lack of a better word, a façade.

I don't think she's actually subserviant at all...it's quite clear from both articles that Tasha Maltby makes Dani Graves do absolutely everything for her...the whole "dog" thing is just, for the lack of a better word, a façade.

Well, no. It describes a human-dog relationship quite well. Pets do not make food for their master either - they provide companionship. But are subservient as well.

No it's not. definately not hot, wierd but not hot no way.

Meh I like it, I guess that just shows that taste differs huh. So the prick of a bus driver didn't like their taste in cloths. Sack him!

hah so's a bin-bag but you don't see people wearing those.

Heh well not since Debbie Harry got old anyhow!