reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe in a free press and if they think the public service is full of racists. Speaker 1 responds with "no" to both questions. Speaker 0 then questions why there is a demand for anti-racism training and asks if Speaker 1 has experienced racism. Speaker 1 refuses to comment. Speaker 0 expresses confusion about why Speaker 1 is on a picket line if they don't want to convey their message to the public. Speaker 1 continues to refuse to comment. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever been victimized by a racist in the public service.

Speaker 0 argues that for women of color, particularly African Americans, problems arise when non-citizens are present in the community. He presents a scene on public property near county and city facilities, stating that “this is public” and asserting that the African American community is being “devastated by the illegal people that are in this community,” clarifying that he is not speaking about legal immigrants. He points to a young lady on the city council who “brags about that she came in here from Canada,” and says his ancestors “came into this country years ago and was put in slavery.” He emphasizes a crisis point, saying that when people are in crisis, they want to discuss it, and he asserts that allowing “so many illegal people to come here and not be US citizens and get housing, get food stamps” is harming the African American community, and that immigration in the city and county has devastated it. He notes that many people don’t want this topic discussed, but insists they will talk about it, and reiterates that the young lady should show she is a US citizen. He concludes by criticizing the behavior of those in the black community who come to the area to give a particular impression, implying hostility or pushback when discussing these issues. Speaker 1 interjects, calling it “a step ahead of conference,” while Speaker 0 attempts to finish speaking and respond to interruptions, insisting on continuing the discussion and asserting his claim about illegal immigration and its impact on African Americans on public housing and related services.

The speakers in the video express their anger towards the police, whom they refer to as Nazis and criminals. They accuse the police of not serving and protecting the community, but instead working for political figures. The speakers threaten to hold the police accountable for their actions and criticize their behavior. They also mention an incident involving an undercover van outside their home. Overall, the speakers express their frustration and disappointment with the police.

The speaker states that during some conversations, allegations were made that someone said "speak English" and "speak clearly." The speaker says they came to speak about this because someone could perceive that as a hate crime. If someone reports this, it needs to be looked at.

The speaker describes an incident where people were using abusive language and making derogatory remarks. The speaker called the police, but they did not take immediate action. Instead, they asked the speaker to go to the police station. The speaker mentioned the names of the people involved, and it was revealed that they had a criminal record. The police still refused to take action, and the situation escalated when the individuals started throwing stones from their rooftop. The police dismissed the speaker's complaint, saying no action would be taken. The speaker was frustrated with the lack of response from the police.

Speaker 0: What the do I have to do in this council in order to get respect as a black woman? I'm not afraid of anybody here. When I make a mistake, I will be clear. I don't hate you as a white woman. I don't hate you as a white man. I am sick and tired of this body so stupidly racially divided, so afraid, so depraved. People with no faith because they are afraid of their losing their advancement. They're afraid of bargaining. They're afraid of leveraging. These people have, oh my god. I can't even call you cowards because desperation deserves mercy. Cancer to redistricting. Fine. We give it to a white woman. Can we all get along? Can we get together? Can we love each other now? Can we make sure that black and brown babies don't die? Can we make sure that cops don't kill before people are proven innocent? Can we do that? No. No. No. No. Because this body crucifies you first because of allegations. This is not a court. You don't get to crucify people before they're proven guilty. They're innocent until proven guilty. Amen. Now after this, I will look forward to working with you because I have stamina. I believe, as Baldwin said, what you do not what you say. Your votes here sometimes are racist. You move sometimes in a way that hurts my people. Speaker 1: Yes. Say that. Speaker 0: And then when I get up to stand up and talk, oh, all she talks about is black stuff. Speaker 1: Yes. You should. Good. Speaker 0: I am here to represent every single black woman and man that suffers in the community. God has my back. Speaker 1: You got your Speaker 0: am not afraid to not have political asylum or any type of affiliations or connections. I came here, I fear none, no man, but my Lord. Amen. I came here to serve people. I came here to love. I came here to grow. But people talk about this racial equity thing. It's all fake. Speaker 1: Thank you. And Speaker 0: you do politics and you hurt each other. And yet, here I am, five foot tall African woman from the projects. And I am here to tell you, if the voters don't vote me back Speaker 1: We are get votes back.

Two people are recorded discussing an alleged road confrontation. Speaker 0 says: "This is Islamophobe white guy. I'm driving, minding my own business." He claims "If you back him up because he's white... You're gonna pay" and "He tried to kill me." He adds, "I'm driving, minding my own business, following the speed limit" as the other driver allegedly speeds and "tries to kill me." He also says, "There's this Islamophobic white guy behind me, literally driving me to don't know where. Almost about to hit me." He appeals for help: "I need somebody Muslim to help me out with this." Speaker 1 asserts, "I am the police. ... where this occurred is my jurisdiction so I need to report call" and "We'll start from the beginning and get everybody's story." They agree on a police report; "You will get your police report. I promise."

The speaker discusses allegations of fraud involving “immigrants” and says foreigners are “getting popped all over the place for committing fraud.” They claim people in comment sections became angry after they said “they’ve been committing fraud,” with others responding by calling them a MAGA or Trump supporter. The speaker rejects those labels and says they work in human services and were “clearing the … applications,” which they say is how they know fraud was occurring. The speaker argues that Black Americans “could have been out there” snitching like “Nick Shirley,” and claims Black Americans have known about fraud connected to multiple POC immigrant communities “since the fucking nineties.” They say Black Americans have been aware that “$2 in a dream” stories are a lie and that people were receiving government benefits while working “under the table,” including food stamps, housing, AFDC checks, and Medicaid. They also claim these communities use childcare assistance, and they say they know about sending “husbands” to work while the individuals allegedly stay at home. The speaker asserts that Black Americans “know everything about every group of fucking people” because “no one pays us any” attention and because others think Black Americans are “too stupid” or “too incompetent” to read or do math. They describe having worked in “health care administration” and claim familiarity with fraud involving home health businesses and psychosocial rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, including “behavioral” services. They contrast Black Americans not troubling others with “the problem” beginning when others “began to trouble us.” The speaker says they join comment sections to explain what they claim to know, stating that other groups use Black Americans’ name to deflect from their own crimes, including robbing “local government funding,” “state fund government funding,” and “federal government funding.” They reference “anchor babies” and say others should “shut the fuck up” and stop making claims about Black Americans lacking culture or not working hard. They conclude by stating “Black Americans don’t snitch,” but say once others “started drinking your own fucking piss” and “talk[ing] to us crazy,” they “finna tell it all.”

Speaker 1 recounts an incident where “eleven police officers” arrived at their house, which they describe as completely ridiculous. The speaker explains they had left the front door open and were waiting for their dad, actually being in the bath at the time the officers entered. They recall hearing their name called, noticing one female officer among the group of ten male officers. They initially thought the name might belong to their sister because they were upstairs in the bath. The officers then came up the stairs without giving them any privacy, and the speaker confirms they were naked. The speaker describes feeling disgusted and very upset, crying their eyes out. They asked that the female officer stay downstairs and that the male officers be the ones to handle the situation, expressing that they were upset about the lack of privacy and the presence of officers while exposed. Despite this, the males were sent downstairs, and the female officer sat with the speaker, who was crying and very distressed. When asked what the officers were there for, the speaker says they asked for clarification. The female officer explained that the police were there for “malicious communications. Hate crime and malicious communications.” The speaker pressed for more information about the reason behind the visit, and the officer indicated they would discuss the details “when we get to the police station” or “to the” authorities, but the exact phrasing in the transcript cuts off here.

The speaker states they disagree with the police's stance on the gang database, believing it cannot be fixed due to its origins in racism. They acknowledge differing opinions and upcoming conversations on the matter. The speaker was not planning to address it, but felt compelled to because the topic was brought up. They maintain their position that the database is fundamentally flawed and must be eliminated.

A speaker describes a situation in which police officers were hiding behind a car. The speaker says, “I tried to grab one of their guns. They grabbed me and says, no. I'm trying to grab for his gun.” The speaker asserts that these police officers know who he is and expresses a wish that they are hearing this. He accuses the officers by saying, “You are weak. You could have saved so many more people's lives.” He claims the officers were simply standing there, listening and watching the events unfold, and that they were holding him back. He questions where the other officers were, asking, “Not there. Nobody was there. Everyone, the public, helped. Nobody else.” The speaker recounts that his three-year-old child was saved by a pregnant woman who saw the child crying and screaming, “mommy, daddy.” He emphasizes that “We were there.” He questions the response time of the police, asking, “do you know how long did it take for police to come? How long did it take?” He describes the crowd’s reaction as “No. Everyone was too scared.” Across these statements, the speaker juxtaposes a perceived inaction by police with the immediate aid provided by bystanders, including a pregnant woman who intervened to protect the speaker’s child. The speaker emphasizes personal danger in attempting to disarm or confront the authorities and highlights a sense that authorities did not respond promptly or effectively, contrasting it with public intervention and rescue efforts.

A speaker confronts police, calling their actions 'There’s absolutely no nobility in what you're doing. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. It's called fascism. It's called fucking fascism.' He asks, 'Did he commit a crime? Is he free to go? Is he being charged with anything?' and, 'Why was he pulled over? What are the charges?' He accuses profiling: 'Are you just pulling over all the brown people who drive by because you arrested another man for what? Was he charged with anything?' He demands accountability: 'What’s your name? Okay. Why don’t you show your fucking faces, you coward?' He notes unmarked cars: 'Unmarked cars. No faces.' 'Yeah. Just says police. Police is awfully generic. So you have a badge number?' The encounter ends with insults: 'Yeah. You'll fuck yourself. You're not welcome here. Get the fuck out of our neighborhood. Jesus Christ.'

Speaker 0 states they do not feel comfortable interacting with Speaker 1 due to a prior incident and a belief that Speaker 1 does not have their safety in mind. The speaker clarifies they only came out because of an argument involving their secretary. Speaker 1 expresses feeling that Speaker 0 dislikes the police and is uncooperative, potentially discouraging police presence at the school. Speaker 1 claims to have discussed the issue with the teacher's union. Speaker 0 interrupts, denying any hatred towards the police, stating some officers are "just fine." Speaker 0 says they do not feel safe or comfortable, but intervened as principal upon hearing the disturbance. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 feels unsafe "right now."

A person is confronting police, asserting their rights as a citizen and demanding respect. They state, "This is a new day. We spend money here. Respect us too." The person denies stealing and accuses the police of racism, claiming to have more training than "savage ass white people." They repeatedly call someone racist and state, "I had your mother talking to him like." They request police assistance while simultaneously verbally confronting them.

The conversation centers on when police can arrest someone over social media posts or other speech that is considered racist or homophobic. One participant says that if a victim feels they have been racially abused, the case can lead to an arrest, with “anything racist” being central to the threshold. They describe the threshold as subjective and explain that victims’ feelings of abuse are part of what triggers police action. The participants discuss what qualifies as racist or homophobic. They give an example of racism as using derogatory terms for someone’s race. For homophobia, they describe it as “putting down someone’s sexuality,” including acts involving public symbols like the LGBTQ rainbow flag, such as publicly taking it or burning it. They also mention that determinations depend on what happens, how it is expressed publicly, and whether it provokes offense or distress. A question is raised about how police decide whether speech is racist enough to make an arrest, especially if the alleged perpetrator claims it “wasn’t racist.” The response is that the allegation is taken as given and can lead to an arrest, and the judgment is then made based on the case circumstances. The participants emphasize that police base decisions on the allegation and their own assessment, rather than solely on whether the perpetrator agrees with the characterization. One participant also compares this to the United States context, saying they have seen people get “locked up” for social media posts, while explaining that in the U.S. freedom of speech applies unless speech is racist, homophobic, or incites violence. They further discuss local “speech laws,” describing them as “very basic” and focused on what people think is “what you shouldn’t be saying.” They say the legal framework works on whether language harasses, alarms, or causes distress. They explain that if something is considered hate, it may start as an opinion, but once it leads to a complaint, police engage with the person who said it, and the matter is then assessed based on how contentious it is and the reasoning behind it. Overall, they conclude that enforcement is “dialogue based” and that the process involves the initial offense claim and subsequent questioning and evaluation.

A person asks why the speaker called the police on two men at CVS. The speaker explains that it is CVS policy to call the police if someone shoplifts. The person questions if it's worth risking someone's life for a low salary. The speaker believes there was no risk and ends the conversation. The person asks for the speaker's name, but the speaker refuses to give it due to being recorded. The person accuses the speaker of inciting violence against the two black men. The speaker mentions that one of the men had a warrant but was let go by the police. The person reminds the speaker that they work with black people.

"The president has been trying to provoke violence here, right here, in the black communities and in the brown communities, having ICE kidnap our neighbors, having black having the black community be harassed and profiled and want, want a response. We say, hell no. We won't go." "Today, we get today today, we gather to speak plainly about policy path that sounds strong, but in truth, it weakens the very safety we see." "Black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, questioned, arrested, and harmed encounters with the law." "When we add the president of federal agents or the national guard to daily life in these neighborhoods, the burden can multiply." "We're fighting for freedom and safety for all people."

White people are tired of hearing about racism and oppression. They are tired of black people's excuses for not graduating high school or raising their kids. Black kids are running all over the city with no parents because the parents let them. Black parents won't cooperate, especially black mothers. Some black mothers chase away men who want to be there for their kids with obnoxious and degrading behaviors. White people are done and getting ready to remove their support. Then black people will understand what racism and oppression is all about.

An email from a senior Hampshire police officer claimed that police are told to handle incidents differently depending on the ethnicity of those involved. The speaker says the Novak family behaved with “very, very great dignity” and that they felt “desperately sorry” for them. The speaker also describes “a sense of cold rage” at how police treated a man who was stabbed, saying the police “didn’t believe him.” They state that the man’s last words were his rights being read out to him, and that this occurred due to a false accusation of racism. The speaker says police have been trained and told to take “that” more seriously than anything else, adding that a false accusation of racism counted higher “at that moment” than “somebody who was dying.” They conclude that this is “two tier Britain” and say they are opposed to DEI, opposed to positive discrimination, and believe that in a free and fair country everyone must be judged equally on their merits.

The speaker predicts that as the United States becomes nonwhite and white people become a minority, someone will eventually claim to represent white people. The speaker states they will reject this person, because no one speaks for them simply because they share the same skin color. The speaker says agreement, not shared skin color, is what allows someone to speak for them. The speaker equates the idea that someone of a certain skin color or ethnic background automatically speaks on behalf of all people who share that skin color or ethnic background to a Nazi idea. The speaker says they will oppose this, even when it happens to them.

Speaker 1 does not feel safe around black people, including their own uncle. They feel very safe around white people. When around black people, Speaker 1 is alert and on edge because they anticipate problems. They are comfortable around white people.

Speaker 0: We're in this together and want to get things done. We're not causing issues, but the restrictions are still in place. The media portrays us as a small minority, but more is happening. My name is George, and I appreciate someone speaking up for the group. We've been instructed to do so by our superiors. We need your support to make a change. We have a lot of support and other police forces are standing up too. There's no negotiation.

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt. I'm just trying to talk. What do you want to know? So go. What are you doing here then? It's a white country. Well, you hate white people. He makes you...He hates white people, everybody. This man here, he hates white people. That's what you just said. You say you hate white people. This man just said to me that he hates white people. This man, he says he won't talk to me because I'm white. He hates white people. Just go. No. You go away.

Speaker 1: "The narrative that they have pushed forward in the last ten years is that there is a relentless assault on against black people be on behalf of white people, and the data does not show that." Speaker 1: "White individuals are actually more likely to be attacked, especially even per capita, by black individuals in this country." Speaker 3: "it's just pure race race mongering, hate mongering. It's wrong." Speaker 3: "Where is the George Floyd policing act? It didn't pass." Speaker 0: "The media doesn't care about this, and we should start asking why." Speaker 1: "All of a sudden, when we make the left live up to their own standard of rules, there is complete silence by the entire American media."

Sarah describes escalating violence in her area, stating that since she moved into her house in 2019 there have been three stabbings and one murder locally. She shares that her friend was murdered last year on the High Street and a girl she knows was murdered in Southall Park. She says the government is failing them and that she is scared for her children, even begging her 22-year-old son to move out of the country. Julia responds with empathy, acknowledging the fear many feel about how many incidents constitute “too many.” Sarah continues, saying that politicians are putting everyone in danger and not doing anything to help. She emphasizes that they are peaceful people and that British people never vote against their government, but that they feel pushed to act because their voices aren’t being listened to. She mentions a cousin who was murdered twenty years ago and notes that nothing has changed. Sarah adds that she doesn’t leave the house without a man and that everyone she knows is getting stabbed. She also mentions women being raped in parts of the area. She stresses that this is where she lives, not where the politicians live. She asks Kissama to do something, expressing extreme fear and stating she has never broken the law, has been a law-abiding citizen, and has been a civil servant. She reiterates that it is people like her who are dying on the street and asserts that safety is not about race, highlighting that her sister is mixed-race and she herself was a white child raised in a mixed-race family. She insists the issue is safety, not race. Julia Julia expresses agreement with Sarah, saying she shares every single word and offers a heartfelt hug to Sarah and to everyone listening or watching.