Branyy

Before playing favourite race card, it'd be helpful if the OP provided some context of the article. Or better - linked the original article.

Regarding the terrorism in UK, I find a major problem in radicalization of British-born muslims. Maybe we could discuss this in another topic so I'm not accused of deflecting here Regarding the Reading's case, part of the problems seems to be not employing proper asylum/immigration policy.

I think the problem in UK lies somewhere else and deflecting to other problems isn't really helping.

And those people would have been probably right. He probably wasn't on the MI5 radar because of throwing out a TV. I think the latest news said that he possibly wanted to travel to Syria to fight. Another thing that strikes me - he was an asylum seeker and already been in jail.

We could say that every terrorist is mentally unstable, couldn't we? That would reduce the terrorism, right? Anyway, the terrorism in UK is defined by terrorism act. If this case fulfills the definition, it is terrorism. Simple as that.

Yes, I deliberately omitted racism. Common decency or snobbery is rather subjective. Racism is not and surely doesn't deserve any platform. But again, the term racism is often used very loosely (this forum is an example) and not everything that is labeled as such is actual racism. (E.g calling some African country a hole is not racists).

Yes, that's my personal perception when I encounter the term "hate speech". See, I wouldn't call lack of decency and snobbery "hate speech".

I'm aware of what free speech means. I'm not disputing Twitter's decision, I don't know what their rules are, I don't really care, and it's a private platform anyway. My point is that labeling something as "hate speech" is very vague and in most cases it sounds like "opinions that oppose mine".

I don't think I've read all her comments on that but from what I've read - no, I don't agree with her. Although I think she had one valid comment regarding the overuse of antidepressants. In any case, I wouldn't call it "hate speech".

Umm, thanks for sharing general description of hate crime. Now can you explain how does it apply to "hate SPEECH"?

It would be helpful if we had an exact definition of "hate speech".

So no evidence after all.

One would say it's almost the same as deflecting to colonization times

Some planning protests, some planning riots, some planning rallies...

I agree.

I think change of the plaque to more appropriate would have done better job.

There certainly (and unfortunately) are people that would welcome raising a statue of Hitler. So I'm asking again - where to draw the line? And who's going to decide?

The question which hasn't been answered - Where do we draw the line?

I was reading about fascism and found that there are three main concepts serving as definition of fascism: the "fascist negations": anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism. "fascist goals": the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire; and "fascist style": a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership. Also, "some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of irrationally misdirected anger and frustration". Misdirected anger. I've heard that recently, I think in this particular topic... Interesting to see the common traits of seemingly opposing ideologies.

Why stop just there? The whole point could be... there shouldn't be ANY crime.

I was just making assumption that with increasing probability of being confronted by police increases the probability of killings by police. I also assumed that violent crime induces stronger response, that's why I limited the numbers to violent crimes. (and also I didn't have the complete numbers for all crimes and arrests). I think the assumptions were fairly rational. Yes, Floyd case isn't falling to this category, but the topic of protests and riots isn't either just about this single case. If it was - well, the policeman is already arrested, charged and will appear at court. I can promise that I'll look into more numbers and stats. But we need to realize, that burden of proof is not on me. Existence of systematic racial targeting by police is a strong claim and requires a strong evidence. Something slightly related to think about - why are white violent criminals over-represented as victims of police shootings?

I don't know, I don't have the absolute numbers. If you show me some a source, I'll have a look and use exact numbers for these too.

Let me clarify then. I'm not making any definite claim regarding systematic police brutality and racism (nowadays). Simply because I don't have enough information and evidence. If someone claims that statistics show that there is systematic racism of police, I want to see that statistics. Because the statistics that I've seen so far don't back up this claim at all, and I've shown how. If you have objections against the numbers I used, feel free to correct those values or assumptions and show more precise conclusions. It should be easy if it's just "faffing with numbers".

Can you explain why? Do you have more precise calculations? I'd love to see. Please, be specific and point out the flaws. I'm more than willing to correct myself.

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying that evidence would be desired if you're already making judgements. You suggested looking up the statistics and I showed you it isn't there. But feel free to point any flaws in those numbers.