Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper 15th March 2018, 03:34 PM

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

The CPS uses definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes:

"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
or

"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."

****************************

I would basically agree with this, except the 'or any other person' segment, as IMO it makes the definition too broad.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th March 2018, 05:56 PM

Victim might be too scared to report it. Many marginalised communities have a difficult relationship with the police that mean they might not report it. “Or any other person” allows witnesses to come forward and report on their behalf.

Definition is not too broad at all. Utterly ridiculous suggestion that it’s too broad

Posted by: vidcapper 16th March 2018, 07:42 AM

But if the opportunity to report an offence is not taken at the first opportunity, surely it weakens their case if done so subsequently, if for no other reason than the passage of time makes it ever harder to prove such cases?



Only as long as the law is applied equally to *all* victims of hate crimes, not just those seen as traditional victims.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th March 2018, 08:06 AM

From today's Ezpress :

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/930790/brexit-vince-cable-speech-european-union-police-david-kurten

Brexit is about FREEDOM! Vince Cable reported to police after branding Leavers racist

A BREXIT speech by Vince Cable where the Lib Dem leader appeared to accuse Leave voters of being driven by racism, has sparked calls to the police to investigate allegations of a hate crime.

******************************

What a delightful irony if he were to be hoist by his own petard - but I can't see it happening in a million years as the PC lobby is now too strong.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th March 2018, 08:45 AM

well you might want to consider the Nottingham murder of a young bright female engineering student from Egypt attacked by local girls. Speaking as one who comes from that area, not surprised at all. The reason mansfield turned Tory for the first time was nothing to do with a sudden conversion to Tory politics, it was entirely anti-foreigner or pro-Brexit.

I look forward to hearing what the motive was to attack a young girl. Did she threaten to murder the culprits? Or did she look and sound just a little bit too middle-easterny?

Trying to hide the awful truth away that people are NOT racist is not going to help, and making stupid statements about racism on those who point out inconvenient facts isn't going to help either. We have laws about it because it's a fact of life, not to attack those who hold a political point of view.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th March 2018, 09:07 AM

I've *never* claimed that racism doesn't exist - surely you can acknowledge that much?

Also, I've always condemned racist attacks, but my sincerity in that is sadly often questioned.

My contention is merely that anti-white racism doesn't seem to get taken as seriously, as vice versa.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th March 2018, 09:17 AM

Point being Cable is 100% correct to say that SOME people voted for Brexit for racist reasons. We all know that's true. I know people who did therefore it's an accurate statement. If he claims ALL voted for that reason then he would be equally wrong because I know people who didn't vote for racist reasons. Fair enough?

PS not all people voting for racist reasons are white. No-one has claimed they are. MOST will be, because there aren't 17 million non-whites in the UK, but racism is nothing to do with being white, it's a problem that affects all of humanity, always has been.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th March 2018, 09:35 AM

I'll give you credit for that.

What we can never know though, is whether the nature of the campaign actually made a difference to the overall result. Personally I am not convinced of that, simply because there was insufficient change in the polls between the start & end of the campaign. I suspect most people had made their minds up long before then.

BTW, I was surprised at your claim that Mansfield had never been Tory before - I checked and found that to be correct, although the Tories fell just 56 votes short in 1983, which is presumably what I was thinking of.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th March 2018, 05:15 PM

The 1983 result would have been influenced by flag-waving and Argie-bothering, which fits in quite well with my comments. It was a mix of staunchly working-class anti-softy-southern-posh-toffs, vs its idea of an exotic holiday being a week at Skeggy, or Mablethorpe if Skeggy's a bit too racy.

Had it been in 1984 the election would have been overwhelmingly Labour what with closing all the pits and decimating industry there and whatnot. I lived through it all and joined the exodus South. I took Tebbit's suggestion and got on my bike (well Austin 1800) and rode. Fortunately I didn't get an evening job in a Brighton hotel so as I could personally thank him.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th March 2018, 07:28 AM

Wondered if you've seen this article?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/19/its-pro-brexit-and-corbyn-wary-so-can-momentum-help-labour-win-back-mansfield

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th March 2018, 01:14 PM

No I hadn't thanks for the link. Mansfield is one of the 10th oldest in terms of average voter age in England, along with Bournemouth and seaside retirement areas, who are very Tory. Mansfield though isnt due to old people moving there, it's due to young people moving away and leaving the older ones behind. I suspect the very very anti-immigrant feelings come from competition for the few low-paid jobs there are, and older people getting those tinted-specs on (I havent been home for 7 years, but last time I went there was constant moaning about "all you hear is Polish accents when you go into town". When I walked into town, granted there were a lot of young Polish people, but equally Mansfield was left hanging by Tories in the 80's and all the young people like me and my ex-Mining brother and his kids all buggered off Southwards because we had no option, and dont feel inclined to go back. So, rather than seeing as a good thing that young educated people wanted to live and work there on lower wages than in other parts of the UK and contribute to the local economy, they just want to get rid of them all and fall back into 1950's poverty)

Posted by: danG 23rd March 2018, 01:21 PM

what do we make of the Count Dankula case then? hate crime or sick joke taken out of context?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pug-nazi-salute-youtube-video-owner-guilty-hate-crime-mark-meechan-lanarkshire-a8265301.html

the decision to sentence him has been very controversial on the internet as you would expect. I think he went too far but it was fully intended as shock humour rather than real hate speech and that shouldn't land you in jail.

Jonathan Pie's response says it better than I could.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd March 2018, 03:24 PM

couldve made it very plain he was joking by teaching the dog to Heil Hitler by saying only Heil Hitler. Didn't. It was the Gassing comment that did him for...

Apparently he has the support of alt-right group The Daily Stormer (Russian internet domain of course), who push the "it was a joke!" protest every time some hate speecher gets caught is actually part of their stated policy of being offensive but using a "lol" to try and get away with it. They hate Jews.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_us_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2

Context is everything.....

Now if the Pug-gagger comes and tells them to f*** off for being anti-semitic hate preachers instead of doing interviews for them then I would give him the benefit of the doubt....

(Addendum: just found out he does selfies with Prison Paul, and Jonathan Pie used to work for RT. Not an innocent bloke just making a bad decision. Knows exactly what he's doing.)

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd March 2018, 05:17 PM

He is awaiting sentence. That could mean he is sent to jail, but he could receive a non-custodial sentence.

Posted by: Chez Wombat 23rd March 2018, 07:09 PM

It's a horrible and insensitive joke yes and he is a fool, but since when is that a crime? There has been SO much dark humour based around the Nazis for the past five decades at least that barely anyone's batted an eyelid at, you can't just pick and choose which is and which isn't worthy of uproar. If he was genuinely supporting the Nazis then fair enough, but to me it seems this was done entirely out of humour and it's rather worrying that that's seen as conviction worthy.

Posted by: Bré 23rd March 2018, 08:11 PM

I've been aware of the Count Dankula case for a while and kind of assumed in the end sanity and context would prevail and he would be found innocent, this really sets a worrying precedent :/ It was absolutely a joke, there is such a thing as shock humour, you could say it's in poor taste and you don't have to like it or find it funny obviously but it's not fucking inciting racial hatred if you have even the slightest sense of context. Anyone interpreting it that way is the one with problems.

Posted by: Bré 23rd March 2018, 08:14 PM

I suggest you watch his official response video which he uploaded today. Him having the support of some unsavoury and opportunistic folks does not mean we shouldn't support his free speech. And he DOES tell people supporting him who are legitimately antisemitic to f*** off (quite literally).

I don't understand what your point is in that first paragraph though? Neither of those phrases is any worse than the other. They're both extremely offensive, which is the whole point, it's what makes the joke 'funny' (again debatable according to your taste in humour).

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd March 2018, 09:10 PM

It's not the support I object to (he has no control over bandwagon jumpers, though he does have control over who he gives interviews to and is taking selfies with, people who are very very aware of what they stand for, and are flag-waving free-speech as permission to offend anybody they like on any issue, when it looks to be judged against the law based on what these legal people are saying). Glad he took my (belated) advice though as it is the best thing he could have done, and I look forward to see him continue to slag off Anti-Semitic organisations...

Comedy writers seem to be split on the issue, one who is Jewish supports it, one who has made Hitler-related gags in the past in classic sitcoms doesn't, and objects to Planet Paul in particular. They have had an interesting discussion on what is or isn't humour...

Heil Hitler is a playground taunt, mocked by generations of kids, and doesn't have the issue of being aimed at any one race it's "inclusive" in its intent, Gas The Jews is kinda specific and unnecessary to make the joke work. I don't see it as a free speech issue (total free speech is illegal everywhere, there has never been such a thing, there is only definitions of what is locally regarded as relative free speech and which differs from country to country) it's purely an issue of intent: intent to mock Nazis (comedy, not illegal, case thrown out).

If he's funny though he should get a career out of it, judging by the fame he didn't have a week ago...

Posted by: Bré 23rd March 2018, 10:17 PM

Who exactly are you referring to here? If I am reading your earlier post correctly and you're inferring that he has given an interview to The Daily Stormer, that is not true at all as far as I can tell and I don't know where you got that from. I'm not 100% sure who this Paul you're talking about is either, I presume Paul Joseph Watson based on a quick Google? In which case I can't find any evidence of him 'taking selfies with him' either so I'm still confused.

edit: alright I looked a bit more and found the selfie in question now and fair enough, it does exist. I'm dubious as to how relevant that is to the verdict though.

As for the intent, in the original video he explicitly says that the point of the joke is to teach the dog the worst thing he can think of, that in itself should tell you that he's not a genuine Nazi sympathiser. It clearly is just shock comedy. Maybe the right course of action here should be for the video to be removed and him to get a warning off YouTube or whatever. Giving him a potential jail sentence for a hate crime is so overblown that I'm actually astonished it's happening.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th March 2018, 10:26 AM

Daily Stormer interview, including his quote that he wants to become a "free speech martyr" and complete with NRA advertising and all the history that goes along with The Daily Stormer.. (he knows the people running it):

https://dailystormer.name/dankula-hopes-to-become-a-free-speech-martyr/

Prison Paul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

What he says after the event has to be balanced by what he was involved in before the event and consider what his motives might be. His motives, I have concerns for, are to push the boundaries of "free speech" to allow statements which aren't really humour to be permitted by adding LOL to them. I'm not saying he's a Nazi sympathiser, I'm just suspicious of his newly-claimed motives based on the company he keeps and his attempt to be a "free speech martyr". I'm not against your suggested removal of the video as a solution either, it sounds reasonable and prevents him becoming a martyr, I'm neither for nor against the case against him in court, but I'm also not convinced he's just a bloke caught up in a furore innocently making a lols youtube clip...

I'm not against Shock Humour by the way, totally worship Family Guy which tackles every topic including Hitler, gassing Jews and all else without getting arrested despite being broadcast on mainstream TV worldwide...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th March 2018, 08:59 PM

In a "you couldnt make it up" moment Count Dankula has blocked comic scriptwriter Graham Linehan from his twitter account for slaggin him off.

So much for the freedom to offend then.....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th April 2018, 07:01 AM

worth posting the court opinion on the fine issued:

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan

Posted by: vidcapper 24th April 2018, 07:08 AM

IMO he was lucky to get away with just an £800 fine for such a deliberately provocative act!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th April 2018, 07:59 PM

oh and he's up to 133k in his gofundme account - that's a bit like walking down the street, screaming "Gas the Jews" with his performing dog and getting mugs to hand over shitloads of cash to pay his begging fine of £800. I wonder if the Scottish court fine (based on his income only) is aware of this additional lucrative cashflow...?

Moral: supporting right-wing fascist causes can make you very wealthy.

I wonder why they do it....? Hmmmm if only I had a performing cat with a Hitler brow.....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th April 2018, 07:34 AM

...and in a final twist of irony, supporters of "freedom of speech" and the right to offend have reported Graham Linehan for slagging off Count Duckula and others to Twitter in an attempt (failed) to get him banned. Hilarious! "comedy" writer fined for crossing the line (according to court records, it was minimal use of the argument for free speech in the defence, which he was insisting is the case) tries to get comedy writer banned. Hah!

Posted by: kindagood 8th May 2018, 01:57 PM

What do you mean when you say all hate crime victims? Not just those traditionally seen as victims? You do realise this is a pretty meaningless statement! A hate crime involves reinforcing the structural oppression of an individual by targeting that which makes the victim a target. A hate crime cannot be committed against someone who has the privilege of the majority, whether that be white, heterosexual, or male privilege.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th May 2018, 03:30 PM

Oh really - then how would you describe the child abuse scandals in Rotherham, Rochdale etc, given who the perpetrators & victims mostly were?

Posted by: kindagood 8th May 2018, 09:19 PM

While abhorrent. It is not a hate crime

Posted by: kindagood 8th May 2018, 10:19 PM

Although I understand your anger, do you believe being abusive is helpful in this situation? Isn't it better to try and educate in a situation like this. I understand the view this poster has.

They clearly don't get that people who are from minority populations can't committ hate crimes because they do not have the power to do so. Yes they can committ dreadful, nasty crimes, but no these aren't hate crimes because they are perpertrated against someone from the majority group. Hate crimes are poorly understood by those who have privilege, mostly because this privilege is silent. Most of us who share privilege are completely unaware of it, because we often don't realise it, we too have struggles in our daily lives, and don't recognise the advantages we do have over people considered 'other' because we too feel life's struggle. Now think how much harder that struggle would be if everyday you were also judged and treated differently because of something you can't change,race, sex, sexual orientation, etc... that is when a crime becomes a hate crime, when the perpertrater is targetting this otherness as a driving factor in the crime. It cant be otherness if you are white, because that is the accepted majority. So race hate crimes only affect those from non white groups, and hate based sexual orientation crimes only affect non-heterosexuals, and hate based gender crimes only affect women, these are the disadvataged groups in our society.

The media needs to play a part in this education, instead of reinforcing privilege.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 8th May 2018, 10:27 PM

We've been attempting to educate him for more than a decade without any success. Sometimes you just need to cut through the BS smokescreen call a spade a spade, or in this case, a racist a racist.

Posted by: kindagood 8th May 2018, 10:47 PM

He may be a racist, but that doesn't excuse someone abusing him. Whether he gets it or not. Instead of abuse you should feel pity for him. If he doesn't have the ability to emphasise with disadvantaged groups, the chances are his own life is empty and lacking love. This is when tolerance of the messenger, but not the message is required. A hard thing to always stick too, but attacking him will only reinforce his view and shut down a dialogue which may take a lifetime to convince him.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th May 2018, 05:49 AM

There;s no need to be abusive,

The method I use to decide in such cases is to flip the victims & perpetrators round - e.g. if white men had been abusing Asian girls, I doubt there's be a media outlet in the country who wouldn't describe it as a racist crime - even the Daily Mail!



While I have been on Buzzjack for over 10 years, I certainly have not been posting to N&P anywhere near that long, so before you abuse me, at least get your facts correct!

On doing a search, I found that with the exception of a single post in 2014, I never posted here (or at least started a topic) before May 2017.

As for The Lounge, I first posted there in 2010, but not regularly until 2012. I used to upset people there with my postings about rap, so I just keep my opinions about it to myself nowadays.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 9th May 2018, 07:12 AM

Yeah your opinions have been accused of having racist intent for a decade and people have been objecting to that for a decade but that’s not the point at hand here.

It doesn’t matter the racial make up of the perpetrators and victims, it will always be a sex crime.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th May 2018, 07:46 AM

But my dislike of rap was never race-based anyway - but I digress.



I've never denied that, but that in itself doesn't mean there ware no racial undertones to the abuse - even the Guardian doesn't ignore that possibility entirely...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/20/rotherham-sexual-abuse-victims-rises-to-1510-operation-stovewood

Or maybe you consider even drawing attention to the possibility, as itself being racist?

Posted by: kindagood 9th May 2018, 08:48 AM

But that is the point of a hate crime. You can't just flip it around. The inequality minority groups face can't be flipped around and be experienced by the majority group. There is the other dimension that not all crime by say whites against blacks, Asians, etc is a hate crime. There has to be a clear intent that the difference was a factor.

Inequality is a component of society, and those with privilege don't, and can't experience it.