BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Legal Definitions of Hate Crime
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
vidcapper
post Mar 15 2018, 03:34 PM
Post #1
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,311
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racis...cution-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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Silas Frřkner
post Mar 15 2018, 05:56 PM
Post #2
Surfing in paradise
********
Group: Entertainment Mod
Posts: 63,925
Member No.: 3,474
Joined: 24-May 07
 


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 16 2018, 07:42 AM
Post #3
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,311
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(5 Silas Frřkner @ Mar 15 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.


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?

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


Only as long as the law is applied equally to *all* victims of hate crimes, not just those seen as traditional victims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 16 2018, 08:06 AM
Post #4
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,311
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


From today's Ezpress :

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/930...ce-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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 16 2018, 08:45 AM
Post #5
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 16 2018, 09:07 AM
Post #6
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,311
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 16 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.


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.


This post has been edited by vidcapper: Mar 16 2018, 09:09 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 16 2018, 09:17 AM
Post #7
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 16 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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 16 2018, 09:35 AM
Post #8
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,311
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 16 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?


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.


This post has been edited by vidcapper: Mar 16 2018, 09:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 16 2018, 05:15 PM
Post #9
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 16 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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 20 2018, 07:28 AM
Post #10
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,311
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 16 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.


Wondered if you've seen this article?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/m...-back-mansfield
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 20 2018, 01:14 PM
Post #11
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 20 2018, 07:28 AM) *


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)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
danG
post Mar 23 2018, 01:21 PM
Post #12
◢ ◤
*******
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 48,415
Member No.: 11,746
Joined: 30-August 10
   No Gallery Pics
 


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...e-a8265301.html

QUOTE
A man who taught his girlfriend's pet pug to give Nazi salutes and then posted the footage on YouTube, has been found guilty of a hate crime.

Mark Meechan, of Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, will be sentenced in April after a Scottish court found him guilty of communicating a "grossly offensive" video.

The 30-year-old taught his girlfriend's pug to react to the words "gas the Jews", which he repeated 23 times in the short video that he uploaded to his YouTube channel last year.


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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 23 2018, 03:24 PM
Post #13
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


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/dail...4b0ce3b344492f2

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.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Mar 23 2018, 05:17 PM
Post #14
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 25,402
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE
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...e-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.


He is awaiting sentence. That could mean he is sent to jail, but he could receive a non-custodial sentence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chez Wombat
post Mar 23 2018, 07:09 PM
Post #15
The owls are not what they seem
*******
Group: Global Mod
Posts: 27,278
Member No.: 9,232
Joined: 11-July 09
   No Gallery Pics
 


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bré
post Mar 23 2018, 08:11 PM
Post #16
Mr Jade Lauren Williams <333
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 82,127
Member No.: 8,300
Joined: 14-February 09
 


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bré
post Mar 23 2018, 08:14 PM
Post #17
Mr Jade Lauren Williams <333
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 82,127
Member No.: 8,300
Joined: 14-February 09
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 23 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/dail...4b0ce3b344492f2

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.)


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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 23 2018, 09:10 PM
Post #18
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Bré @ Mar 23 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).


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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bré
post Mar 23 2018, 10:17 PM
Post #19
Mr Jade Lauren Williams <333
********
Group: Moderator
Posts: 82,127
Member No.: 8,300
Joined: 14-February 09
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 23 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...


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 24 2018, 10:26 AM
Post #20
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 12,778
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Bré @ Mar 23 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.


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-...-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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th July 2018 - 09:41 AM