Jump to content

Snowflake Big Brother

banana

By banana
in The General Nonsense Forum

Snowflake Big Brother  

35 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

coprolite

coprolite

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Its a tweet by a police force encouraging to people report crimes currently on the statute book. Its a variation of a crime that has existed for hundreds of years that has been applied to the online world for more than 20 years. 

If people think that racially aggravated offences should be struck of the statute books then step forward with something a bit more that teary eyed bleating about "SJWs". 

making offensive or insulting comments isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

The recipient's perception of the instigator's motivation is an entirely subjective and unjust reason for criminalising otherwise legal behaviour. 

If my wife calls me an arsehole, that's not a crime. If i decide that the reason she has done so is because i identify as a male then: bingo! hate crime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Gaz

Gaz

Posted
Posted
On 05/09/2018 at 21:34, Gaz said:

The word "snowflake". Used exclusively by seething, bitter right-wingers who are annoyed their hobbies of being massively insulting and derogatory to anyone who doesn't fit into their blinkered view of the world are finally getting frowned upon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
banana

banana

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Good God, I bring yet more insight into growing 'Progressive' Totalitarianism far removed from "It's only tumblr and students, duh!", and half the forum freaks out.

Hopefully Police Scotland follows suit, then the fun begins, bigots! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dorlomin

dorlomin

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, coprolite said:

making offensive or insulting comments isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

A racially aggravated breach of the peace online is a crime. If you do not think so, try it out and see how you get on. 

Quote

The recipient's perception of the instigator's motivation is an entirely subjective 

When you have called a few people online n*gger and p*ki b*****ds, let us know how that line of defence went down with the magistrate. I am sure you will be as sucessful in defining law how you want it too work as the Freemen of the Land. 

Quote

If my wife calls me an arsehole, that's not a crime. 

There a magistrate may be sympathetic. But repeatedly calling someone an arsehole online in a fashion likely to cause alarm or distress and you would be skating on thin ice. Its subjective, just like a large part of law. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Melanius Mullarkey

Melanius Mullarkey

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, banana said:

Good God, I bring yet more insight into growing 'Progressive' Totalitarianism far removed from "It's only tumblr and students, duh!", and half the forum freaks out.

Hopefully Police Scotland follows suit, then the fun begins, bigots! :angry:

pccabe is/was our window into Police Scotland.

Make of that what you will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The OP

The OP

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, coprolite said:

making offensive or insulting comments isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

The recipient's perception of the instigator's motivation is an entirely subjective and unjust reason for criminalising otherwise legal behaviour. 

If my wife calls me an arsehole, that's not a crime. If i decide that the reason she has done so is because i identify as a male then: bingo! hate crime.

 

No it's not. You've just made stuff up. Transgender identity is an aggravation to existing offences but (assuming you live in Scotland) it isn't a specific offence to insult someone because of their gender identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coprolite

coprolite

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, The OP said:

No it's not. You've just made stuff up. Transgender identity is an aggravation to existing offences but (assuming you live in Scotland) it isn't a specific offence to insult someone because of their gender identity.

It might be wrong, but it wasn't me making it up. I used the definition from the police post. 

Both sex and gender re-assignment are protected characteristics under the equalities act.

You assume wrong; i don't live in Scotland and neither do the South Yorkshire Police. 

Outside Scotland, breach of the peace isn't an offence. Inside Scotland, the police decide what that is to suit themselves. Anything that makes it more wooly should be treated with care.

1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

 

 

1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

When you have called a few people online n*gger and p*ki b*****ds, let us know how that line of defence went down with the magistrate. I am sure you will be as sucessful in defining law how you want it too work as the Freemen of the Land. 

There a magistrate may be sympathetic. But repeatedly calling someone an arsehole online in a fashion likely to cause alarm or distress and you would be skating on thin ice. Its subjective, just like a large part of law. 

 

Why would i do that? 

I think if someone did that there would be more evidence of their motivation than the perception of the recipient.

To be clear. Under the definition circulated by plod, Serena Williams umpire chum should be prosecuted because he has offended her and she perceives it to be because she is female.

I don't think that plod have accurately represented the actual existing law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The OP

The OP

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It might be wrong, but it wasn't me making it up. I used the definition from the police post. 

Both sex and gender re-assignment are protected characteristics under the equalities act.

You assume wrong; i don't live in Scotland and neither do the South Yorkshire Police. 

Outside Scotland, breach of the peace isn't an offence. Inside Scotland, the police decide what that is to suit themselves. Anything that makes it more wooly should be treated with care.

 

Why would i do that? 

I think if someone did that there would be more evidence of their motivation than the perception of the recipient.

To be clear. Under the definition circulated by plod, Serena Williams umpire chum should be prosecuted because he has offended her and she perceives it to be because she is female.

I don't think that plod have accurately represented the actual existing law. 

You're professing your ignorance but continuing to talk pish about Serena bloody Williams.

The test for breach of the peace is exactly the same whether there is a religious or racial aggravation as if there is not. That is why it is called an aggravation. I can't be arsed studying English law for 4 years to tell you that you're wrong under English law too but I'm pretty sure that in England so-called 'hate crime' is just an aggravating factor to existing crimes too. A very quick Google says

"section 29J POA1986 provides that, as to stirring up religious hatred, nothing in the Act "... prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult, or abuse of particular religions, or the beliefs or practices of its adherents." 

When you are talking about the perception of the victim or any other person, what that means is you might have someone attacking someone for being a Muslim because they are wearing a turban. Just because they're actually Sikh and that person is ignorant doesn't mean they have not picked on a person for a perceived characteristic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coprolite

coprolite

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, The OP said:

You're professing your ignorance but continuing to talk pish about Serena bloody Williams.

The test for breach of the peace is exactly the same whether there is a religious or racial aggravation as if there is not. That is why it is called an aggravation. I can't be arsed studying English law for 4 years to tell you that you're wrong under English law too but I'm pretty sure that in England so-called 'hate crime' is just an aggravating factor to existing crimes too. A very quick Google says

"section 29J POA1986 provides that, as to stirring up religious hatred, nothing in the Act "... prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult, or abuse of particular religions, or the beliefs or practices of its adherents." 

When you are talking about the perception of the victim or any other person, what that means is you might have someone attacking someone for being a Muslim because they are wearing a turban. Just because they're actually Sikh and that person is ignorant doesn't mean they have not picked on a person for a perceived characteristic. 

I am not criticising the actually existing law about aggravating factors etc.

I was criticising the tweet by South Yorks police for

1 -not accurately representing the law and 

2-asking people to report sub-criminal activity.

 

They refer to the perception of the victim; you to that of the attacker.

d- for comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The OP

The OP

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I am not criticising the actually existing law about aggravating factors etc.

I was criticising the tweet by South Yorks police for

1 -not accurately representing the law and 

2-asking people to report sub-criminal activity.

 

They refer to the perception of the victim; you to that of the attacker.

d- for comprehension.

No they haven't, their statement is neutral about whose interpretation they refer to. E- for comprehension which is one worse than D- so I clearly win. 

 

Even if it was down to the victim's perception it would be put to a legal test along the lines of what a reasonable person would think because that's how the law works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...