'Hate Crimes'

[Mkapaka 219]

41 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

There is no such thing as a hate crime, it's subjective virtue signalling ballcox.

Similarly there is no such thing as a non crime incident, yet more ballcox.

 

Crown Prosecution Service :

 

Deliver justice: we will ensure [sic] that the right people take the right decisions about prosecution at the right time.

 

In hate crime cases this includes gathering evidence that the victim has been targeted because of their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and/or transgender identity or because of what the offender believes to be their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and/or transgender identity.

 

Words which should not be within a million miles of any courtroom.

And they wouldn’t be - unless the CPS found evidence of it. 

[Chekhov 488]

On 10/03/2024 at 22:22, Mkapaka said:

>>Chekhov said:
There is no such thing as a hate crime, it's subjective virtue signalling ballcox.

Similarly there is no such thing as a non crime incident, yet more ballcox.

Crown Prosecution Service :

Deliver justice: we will ensure [sic] that the right people take the right decisions about prosecution at the right time.

In hate crime cases this includes gathering evidence that the victim has been targeted because of their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and/or transgender identity or because of what the offender believes to be their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and/or transgender identity.<<

 

Words which should not be within a million miles of any courtroom.

And they wouldn’t be - unless the CPS found evidence of it. 

I think you have rather missed the point, evidence of what exactly ?

[Mkapaka 219]

46 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I think you have rather missed the point, evidence of what exactly ?

it isn’t me missing the point,
 

Evidence that they had been targeted because of their race for example. 

Edited March 12 by Mkapaka

[Guest]

A quick follow-up on the India Willoughby interview, or rather the fallout from the interview and the appalling behaviour of the interviewer:

 

 

Commentary from Sarah Phillimore, behind a link because mentions the language used by the reporter.

 

The interviewer used to work with Tommy Robinson, and was apparently some sort of alt-right influencer/YouTuber, before signing up with Byline Media.

 

[alchresearch 215]

This clip was from the Simpsons in 2006.

 

Like many other things they predicted, it came true - particularly the youth and their quickness to shout hate for anything - now common as "cancel culture" and "cultural appropriation"

 

 

[leviathan13 350]

If a white person takes offence at a comment about a black person but the black person found it funny because they understood the context/joke, can the white person still claim a hate crime despite them not being of the race supposedly being subjected to the hate?

[Chekhov 488]

3 hours ago, Mkapaka said:

it isn’t me missing the point,
 

Evidence that they had been targeted because of their race for example. 

You are missing the point.

If someone is violently assaulted that's a crime.

If someone is violently assaulted because of their race / sexuality / trans whatever,  that's a crime, exactly the same crime in fact.

[Chekhov 488]

9 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

If a white person takes offence at a comment about a black person but the black person found it funny because they understood the context/joke, can the white person still claim a hate crime despite them not being of the race supposedly being subjected to the hate?

This post sums up how ludicrous the whole thing is.

Edited March 12 by Chekhov

[Al Bundy 1,577]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

This clip was from the Simpsons in 2006.

 

Like many other things they predicted, it came true - particularly the youth and their quickness to shout hate for anything - now common as "cancel culture" and "cultural appropriation"

 

 

And back then you will have had folk saying " oh don't be a snowflake, it's all nonsense and nothing to be concerned about"

 

 

[Mkapaka 219]

5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

You are missing the point.

If someone is violently assaulted that's a crime.

If someone is violently assaulted because of their race / sexuality / trans whatever,  that's a crime, exactly the same crime in fact.

You’ve now changed your argument entirely from that victims were deciding if it was a hate crime or not - which was demonstrably untrue - to one about how crimes should be sentenced.

 

that’s a completely different argument - crimes aren’t always dealt with as the same by a court and the wider circumstances might be considered when sentencing.

 

 

 

 

[Mkapaka 219]

5 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

If a white person takes offence at a comment about a black person but the black person found it funny because they understood the context/joke, can the white person still claim a hate crime despite them not being of the race supposedly being subjected to the hate?

If you read back through my posts on  the thread you’ll find the answer to your question. 
 

The white person could claim whatever they wanted but the CPS would have to consider there was sufficient evidence that a crime had actually occurred in the first instance and then secondly that the crime met the definition of a hate crime.

 

its only  difficult if you work of the premise that anyone can decide if a hate crime has been suffered and they are now a victim - which is a load of rubbish that the op came out with.

 

 

[Mkapaka 219]

5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

This post sums up how ludicrous the whole thing is.

Wilful ignorance.

Edited March 12 by Mkapaka