|
|
Post by realmadkid on Sept 16, 2021 0:13:57 GMT
How very fucking interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Sept 16, 2021 12:07:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by enoch on Sept 16, 2021 14:23:51 GMT
'big bear' knows the trannie world inside and out mate so id watch yourself. Inside and out i say. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 16:19:47 GMT
Harry Miller in person Article 10 of the EU convention on human rights is a complete nonsense. All that is required is the perception of hate. "In the perception of the victim." Isn't this a made-up nonsense? Article 10 of the EU convention on human rights (and article 10 of the associated Human Rights Act in the UK) has no such reference to perception of the victim in relation to the duties and responsibilities aligned with exercising the freedoms of expression it conveys. The 'in the perception of the victim' thing simply relates to the situation where, when a potential offence is perceived by a victim or witness to have been motivated by hostility towards the victims disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender orientation, it can then potentially be recorded as a hate crime. BUT - the victim doesn't get to decide that a crime has been committed which was a hate crime, it just feeds into the input the CPS use to determine whether it should be considered as a potential hate crime. It kind of makes sense. The CPS don't just decide something should be tried as a hate crime, unless someone (a victim or witness) expresses their opinion that that was the motive. The CPS similarly would generally only consider prosecuting a sexual assault case, where a victim has declared they believe they've been subject to a sexual assault. It doesn't mean that a sexual assault occurred, just because a supposed victim said it did. If a car is stolen, it only gets considered as a theft if the victim reports it as a stolen car...even though it might well turn out they're pissed and simply can't remember where they parked it. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Sept 16, 2021 17:14:07 GMT
Are they all still in denial that the forum has turned to shit now that the posters with interesting and opposing opinions have been silenced, driven way, or just can't be arsed anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by enoch on Sept 16, 2021 20:28:17 GMT
Are they all still in denial that the forum has turned to shit now that the posters with interesting and opposing opinions have been silenced, driven way, or just can't be arsed anymore? its just fukkas and deep bumming each over out over dbs checks. Its turned into a pompous cesspit of egoistic cretins and creeps who no doubt have book upon book about the evils of the british empire. They have zero knowledge of real world. Zero. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Sept 17, 2021 10:17:10 GMT
Harry Miller in person Article 10 of the EU convention on human rights is a complete nonsense. All that is required is the perception of hate. "In the perception of the victim." Isn't this a made-up nonsense? Article 10 of the EU convention on human rights (and article 10 of the associated Human Rights Act in the UK) has no such reference to perception of the victim in relation to the duties and responsibilities aligned with exercising the freedoms of expression it conveys. The 'in the perception of the victim' thing simply relates to the situation where, when a potential offence is perceived by a victim or witness to have been motivated by hostility towards the victims disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender orientation, it can then potentially be recorded as a hate crime. BUT - the victim doesn't get to decide that a crime has been committed which was a hate crime, it just feeds into the input the CPS use to determine whether it should be considered as a potential hate crime. It kind of makes sense. The CPS don't just decide something should be tried as a hate crime, unless someone (a victim or witness) expresses their opinion that that was the motive. The CPS similarly would generally only consider prosecuting a sexual assault case, where a victim has declared they believe they've been subject to a sexual assault. It doesn't mean that a sexual assault occurred, just because a supposed victim said it did. If a car is stolen, it only gets considered as a theft if the victim reports it as a stolen car...even though it might well turn out they're pissed and simply can't remember where they parked it. According to Harry Miller, and Fair Cop, the new UK hate crime guidance (laws?) is/are based on Article 10. See here www.faircop.org.uk/the-law/In Chapter 1 of the 2014 version of the Hate Crime Guidance, a ‘Hate Incident’ is described as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”. (emphasis in original) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 10:50:48 GMT
Isn't this a made-up nonsense? Article 10 of the EU convention on human rights (and article 10 of the associated Human Rights Act in the UK) has no such reference to perception of the victim in relation to the duties and responsibilities aligned with exercising the freedoms of expression it conveys. The 'in the perception of the victim' thing simply relates to the situation where, when a potential offence is perceived by a victim or witness to have been motivated by hostility towards the victims disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender orientation, it can then potentially be recorded as a hate crime. BUT - the victim doesn't get to decide that a crime has been committed which was a hate crime, it just feeds into the input the CPS use to determine whether it should be considered as a potential hate crime. It kind of makes sense. The CPS don't just decide something should be tried as a hate crime, unless someone (a victim or witness) expresses their opinion that that was the motive. The CPS similarly would generally only consider prosecuting a sexual assault case, where a victim has declared they believe they've been subject to a sexual assault. It doesn't mean that a sexual assault occurred, just because a supposed victim said it did. If a car is stolen, it only gets considered as a theft if the victim reports it as a stolen car...even though it might well turn out they're pissed and simply can't remember where they parked it. According to Harry Miller, and Fair Cop, the new UK hate crime guidance (laws?) is/are based on Article 10. See here www.faircop.org.uk/the-law/In Chapter 1 of the 2014 version of the Hate Crime Guidance, a ‘Hate Incident’ is described as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”. (emphasis in original)The guidance isn't laws, its the instruction to police on how to categorise and handle alleged offences. ie - if someone says they have been subject to an illegal hate crime, then its investigated as a potential hate crime. Police don't determine subsequent guilt for hate crimes, they don't just hand out an unquestionable fixed penalty notice, they go to court - ie - an individual 'victim' saying they have been subject to a hate crime does NOT make it a hate crime. You can read the legislation / enacted laws yourself searching on www.legislation.gov.uk ; they're relatively easy to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Sept 17, 2021 15:54:03 GMT
According to Harry Miller, and Fair Cop, the new UK hate crime guidance (laws?) is/are based on Article 10. See here www.faircop.org.uk/the-law/In Chapter 1 of the 2014 version of the Hate Crime Guidance, a ‘Hate Incident’ is described as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”. (emphasis in original)The guidance isn't laws, its the instruction to police on how to categorise and handle alleged offences. ie - if someone says they have been subject to an illegal hate crime, then its investigated as a potential hate crime. Police don't determine subsequent guilt for hate crimes, they don't just hand out an unquestionable fixed penalty notice, they go to court - ie - an individual 'victim' saying they have been subject to a hate crime does NOT make it a hate crime. You can read the legislation / enacted laws yourself searching on www.legislation.gov.uk ; they're relatively easy to understand. Guidance, catergorisation, allegations, blah. All well and good, but non-crime hate-crime convictions show up on enhanced CRO checks. In other words, you could lose your job, or get turned down for a job. Whichever way you look at it, there have been about 200,000 non-crime hate-crime convictions thus far. A waste of police resources? When allegations are made, they investigate many of them, even if courts make the final decision. Furthermore, courts do, in fact, get to decide on what is a hate crime. In the case of the Nazi Pug, for example, the defendant argued that he had committed no crime in view of the comedy context. The judge informed him, in no uncertain terms, that the court get to decide the context. He was fined 800 and convicted of a hate crime. He escaped a custodial sentence, probably because of the public outcry. The case was subject to appeal, and Count Dankula raised almost 200,000 GBP from around the world to fight the case. I'm not sure of the outcome at this moment in time. Also, consider the case of the Liverpool lass who posted the lyrics of a rap song in tribute to her dead friend who died in a road accident. The lyrics contained the N word, and she ended up with a fine and conviction. Ridiculous on its face. The implications of this nonsense are certainly easy to understand, even if the police and courts may struggle with interpreting the guidance/laws, which they often do. Hence the need for good lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by otiumvitae on Sept 29, 2021 20:41:39 GMT
This guys puts out truth daily.....he is on a mission.
The "snowflakes" want him banned of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Oct 5, 2021 10:26:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by otiumvitae on Oct 6, 2021 5:38:53 GMT
Wong is the most common Chinese name....closely followed by Wing.
You have to be careful not to wing the wong number.
Seriously, these people need to get a life and grow up.
Grooming gangs, terror cells, illegal immigration, housing shortages, recession imminent but they want "stick and stones" stories and Facetwat "hate crimes".
By the way, Chang is the most common Chinese name.
p.s. WTF is "casual racism"....is it like my joke, just a joke?
|
|
|
|
Post by stagnum on Oct 6, 2021 5:54:39 GMT
Wong is the most common Chinese name....closely followed by Wing. You have to be careful not to wing the wong number. Seriously, these people need to get a life and grow up. Grooming gangs, terror cells, illegal immigration, housing shortages, recession imminent but they want "stick and stones" stories and Facetwat "hate crimes". By the way, Chang is the most common Chinese name. p.s. WTF is "casual racism"....is it like my joke, just a joke? "wing the wong number"....you takin' the piss out of poor old Woy again? |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Oct 19, 2021 10:33:59 GMT
Cancel Culture again, although it's not real according to some at DATM!
Dreyfus was erased for speaking up on behalf of JK Rowling after she was viciously attacked and cancelled. This bit from 13:30 onwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagnum on Oct 19, 2021 21:35:56 GMT
Love JK Rowling. Loads of insults and people being offended in the Harry Potter books. Yer filthy mudblood!
|
|
