Union Flag Change for GB Olympics Team
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Behind Enemy Lines  Sussex 04 Apr 24 9.52pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It’s not up to the member of any group to decide if they have been harmed. It’s up to the Police and, ultimately, the courts to decide, and there is a pretty high bar. The government isn’t using the law to do anything. They make the law and then the regular processes take over to administer it. You cannot be harmed by words alone. It’s the intent behind them that cause the harm. You can be threatened and intimidated by hate speech, and others encouraged to do harm. The assessment is made not on the words, but on the intent. See JK Rowling. Policing this shouldn’t demand a lot of Police resources but if it does then any complaints need to go to the government for increasing workload without providing resources, if other areas suffer. The Police will do what they have to do. I suppose the reference to the same protected groups being the perpetrators of crime is a dig at immigrants. Firstly, they aren’t protected. Secondly, it’s a statistical fact that the level of criminality among the immigrant community as a whole is lower than among those born here. The true state of the UK is known, it’s in a mess. That though has nothing to do with these ideas. Brexit, the pandemic and Putin alongside the stupidity of PMs like Johnson and Truss are the causes. “You cannot be harmed by words alone. It’s the intent behind them that cause the harm.”
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 24 9.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Ah the overly verbose partisan conservative at it again This reaction is simply a lazy pile on after postage stamp cross gate. If any of you had bothered to look at various countries Olympic apparel (winter and summer) over the last 20 years you’d see a wide range of variation year on year, veering from conformist to abstract and everything in between. Some staying faithful to traditional elements and colours, some not. In other words - this constant reinvention is nothing new, has been happening for quite some time, and in an increasingly commercial and brand/merch driven world absolutely essential to drive revenue. You all seem to have completely forgotten the 2012 Team GB branding, which veered between white light blue, purple and dark blue to red, crimson and white depending on application. Check out the recent Winter Olympics kits as well, while you’re at it. All sports technical wear and beyond has long departed from the ‘put a flag on it and do that every year’. These items have to appeal to the casual wearer as a semi-fashion item as well as being marketable and brand distinctive. It’s a commercial cycle. Nationalism takes a back seat to brand these days. Traditional > reinvention then back round again. Ideological storm in a teacup. Well said! It’s what I have been pointing out for a couple of days, but without any apparent recognition that this is a manufactured situation. Let’s see if your analysis does.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  04 Apr 24 9.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It’s not up to the member of any group to decide if they have been harmed. It’s up to the Police and, ultimately, the courts to decide, and there is a pretty high bar. The government isn’t using the law to do anything. They make the law and then the regular processes take over to administer it. You cannot be harmed by words alone. It’s the intent behind them that cause the harm. You can be threatened and intimidated by hate speech, and others encouraged to do harm. The assessment is made not on the words, but on the intent. See JK Rowling. Policing this shouldn’t demand a lot of Police resources but if it does then any complaints need to go to the government for increasing workload without providing resources, if other areas suffer. The Police will do what they have to do. I suppose the reference to the same protected groups being the perpetrators of crime is a dig at immigrants. Firstly, they aren’t protected. Secondly, it’s a statistical fact that the level of criminality among the immigrant community as a whole is lower than among those born here. The true state of the UK is known, it’s in a mess. That though has nothing to do with these ideas. Brexit, the pandemic and Putin alongside the stupidity of PMs like Johnson and Truss are the causes. This is wrong as regards Scotland where the police have said a hate crime is: Any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person as motivated (wholly or partly) by malice or ill will toward a social group. They have also pledged to investigate every report of claimed hate crime.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 24 9.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
“You cannot be harmed by words alone. It’s the intent behind them that cause the harm.” Don’t ask me! I wasn’t responsible for looking at those incidents and deciding whether any had broken the law and/or whether a warning was sufficient.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 04 Apr 24 9.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It’s not up to the member of any group to decide if they have been harmed. It’s up to the Police and, ultimately, the courts to decide, and there is a pretty high bar. The government isn’t using the law to do anything. They make the law and then the regular processes take over to administer it. You cannot be harmed by words alone. It’s the intent behind them that cause the harm. You can be threatened and intimidated by hate speech, and others encouraged to do harm. The assessment is made not on the words, but on the intent. See JK Rowling. Policing this shouldn’t demand a lot of Police resources but if it does then any complaints need to go to the government for increasing workload without providing resources, if other areas suffer. The Police will do what they have to do. I suppose the reference to the same protected groups being the perpetrators of crime is a dig at immigrants. Firstly, they aren’t protected. Secondly, it’s a statistical fact that the level of criminality among the immigrant community as a whole is lower than among those born here. The true state of the UK is known, it’s in a mess. That though has nothing to do with these ideas. Brexit, the pandemic and Putin alongside the stupidity of PMs like Johnson and Truss are the causes. Yes, and the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea states that: "All North Korean citizens have equal rights. Citizens have the right to elect and be elected (Article 66), freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association (Article 67), freedom of religious belief (Article 6 There are similar claims in the EU constitution that the EU is democratic.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
"| Teddy Eagle 04 Apr 24 9.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That seems semantics to me. It’s still necessary for the intentions to be likely. All it does is lower the burden of proof a little. From beyond all reasonable doubt to more likely than not. I don’t think the UK government are happy with it so won’t be following suit. It's not semantics. It's the law. And includes anything you might say in your own home. Lowering the burden of proof a little can end someone up with a 7 year sentence.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 24 10.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
This is wrong as regards Scotland where the police have said a hate crime is: Any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person as motivated (wholly or partly) by malice or ill will toward a social group. They have also pledged to investigate every report of claimed hate crime. Is the second paragraph a quote or your own interpretation? Assuming it’s a quote, what’s the difference between “motivation” and “intent” in this context? Assuring every complaint will be investigated is good PR but what does it mean? Logging them and observing patterns seems most likely to me, with action once a discernible trend is seen.,
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 24 10.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It’s not up to the member of any group to decide if they have been harmed. It’s up to the Police and, ultimately, the courts to decide, and there is a pretty high bar. The government isn’t using the law to do anything. They make the law and then the regular processes take over to administer it. You cannot be harmed by words alone. It’s the intent behind them that cause the harm. You can be threatened and intimidated by hate speech, and others encouraged to do harm. The assessment is made not on the words, but on the intent. See JK Rowling. Policing this shouldn’t demand a lot of Police resources but if it does then any complaints need to go to the government for increasing workload without providing resources, if other areas suffer. The Police will do what they have to do. I suppose the reference to the same protected groups being the perpetrators of crime is a dig at immigrants. Firstly, they aren’t protected. Secondly, it’s a statistical fact that the level of criminality among the immigrant community as a whole is lower than among those born here. The true state of the UK is known, it’s in a mess. That though has nothing to do with these ideas. Brexit, the pandemic and Putin alongside the stupidity of PMs like Johnson and Truss are the causes. That's what you say, predictably. So to sum up. You think there is no control element to these laws. I would have to ask if there is anything you wouldn't deny in order to keep believing in your ideological fantasy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 24 10.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
It's not semantics. It's the law. And includes anything you might say in your own home. Lowering the burden of proof a little can end someone up with a 7 year sentence. Including what you say at home does seem a step too far to me, but I doubt it will ever be used, other than in very exceptional circumstances. You will still have to be found to have been motivated by hate, which means you had those intentions. Yes, the burden of proof has been lowered but everyone has the opportunity to defend themselves and explain what their motives were, if not hatred. I don’t think the truly innocent have too much to fear, whilst the racists and hate mongers do.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 24 10.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Including what you say at home does seem a step too far to me, but I doubt it will ever be used, other than in very exceptional circumstances. You will still have to be found to have been motivated by hate, which means you had those intentions. Yes, the burden of proof has been lowered but everyone has the opportunity to defend themselves and explain what their motives were, if not hatred. I don’t think the truly innocent have too much to fear, whilst the racists and hate mongers do. Sounds like something Hitler might have said.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 04 Apr 24 10.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Is the second paragraph a quote or your own interpretation? Assuming it’s a quote, what’s the difference between “motivation” and “intent” in this context? Assuring every complaint will be investigated is good PR but what does it mean? Logging them and observing patterns seems most likely to me, with action once a discernible trend is seen., It's a quote from Police Scotland whose pledge is to investigate every report. Not some. All.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 04 Apr 24 10.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Including what you say at home does seem a step too far to me, but I doubt it will ever be used, other than in very exceptional circumstances. You will still have to be found to have been motivated by hate, which means you had those intentions. Yes, the burden of proof has been lowered but everyone has the opportunity to defend themselves and explain what their motives were, if not hatred. I don’t think the truly innocent have too much to fear, whilst the racists and hate mongers do. On what grounds do you doubt it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.