|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 14, 2023 16:47:36 GMT
"...Further, if we are to do you want and apply an official standard, we need an army of 'experts' whose jobs is to define, identify and adjudicate discrimination. These experts are not at all interested in a common sense interpretation - their interests will line up with making the rules as obtuse as a possible so that more discrimination can be found and they can be paid to solve an 'ever increasing problem'. This is some significant fraction how we ended up where we are - there is more though."
I think that stage has already been passed. There is no longer any need for discrimination experts to be involved, as the officially adopted definition of a racist incident shows:
"A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 14, 2023 17:17:37 GMT
"...Further, if we are to do you want and apply an official standard, we need an army of 'experts' whose jobs is to define, identify and adjudicate discrimination. These experts are not at all interested in a common sense interpretation - their interests will line up with making the rules as obtuse as a possible so that more discrimination can be found and they can be paid to solve an 'ever increasing problem'. This is some significant fraction how we ended up where we are - there is more though." I think that stage has already been passed. There is no longer any need for discrimination experts to be involved, as the officially adopted definition of a racist incident shows: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.Though that was only guidance on what should be investigated, not an indication that a crime had been committed. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 14, 2023 17:28:13 GMT
Following a landmark case involving a BNP member in South Wales, there does not even need to be an identifiable victim for a successful prosecution to be brought. It's sufficient that the testimony given by the 'any other person' is judged by the court to be 'compelling enough'. It's all very reminiscent of the Third Reich where 'any other person' could denounce you to the Gestapo for listening to the BBC. www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bnp-member-fined-unique-race-2314926 |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 14, 2023 17:39:22 GMT
Following a landmark case involving a BNP member in South Wales, there does not even need to be an identifiable victim for a successful prosecution to be brought. It's sufficient that the testimony given by the 'any other person' is judged by the court to be 'compelling enough'. It's all very reminiscent of the Third Reich where 'any other person' could denounce you to the Gestapo for listening to the BBC. www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bnp-member-fined-unique-race-2314926That was nearly 20 years ago! Did it end up being a landmark case? Has there been a slew of similar cases that have had the same outcome citing this one as precedent ? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 14, 2023 18:11:52 GMT
Oh oh, you said coloured instead of people of colourNever mind that you were clearly defending them. The pendulum needs to swing back to the middle, my fear is that if we keep pushing this end down, when it swings back it will go right back the other way. You have done a good job here choosing an uncontroversial example. It needs to be uncontroversial because the issue isn't really the thing itself. Such rules have an organisational effect - They select for those who care little for reality and a lot for appearance, those who will repeat what they are told to repeat and feel no embarrassment They select against those who insist on talking plainly and honestly and try to build genuine trust with others. What we are seeing now is this subtle social policy bearing fruit. It demonstrates how finely tuned the system they replaced was. I read many books on the historical thinkers throughout the ages. They built this wisdom up over some 1000 years and it all started when they cottoned on to the idea of fair and reasoned argument. They developed an order out of chaos, in fact in a similar way to how life evolved out of a load of chemicals brought to us by stars. Far more combinations would yield noting at all, but one particular system known as carbon based life forms just worked. So since the humans have been around there have been countless ideas, but it took until about the 18th century for them to hit on what propelled us to the level of sophistication were recently were. Now though there seems to be degeneration in this country wherever you look. I think it has a lot to do with anger. When someone gets angry their IQ drops. Each day the newspapers deliberately make their audience angry. it's like drug. |
|
|
|
Post by besoeker3 on May 14, 2023 18:36:13 GMT
You have done a good job here choosing an uncontroversial example. It needs to be uncontroversial because the issue isn't really the thing itself. Such rules have an organisational effect - They select for those who care little for reality and a lot for appearance, those who will repeat what they are told to repeat and feel no embarrassment They select against those who insist on talking plainly and honestly and try to build genuine trust with others. What we are seeing now is this subtle social policy bearing fruit. So since the humans have been around there have been countless ideas, but it took until about the 18th century for them to hit on what propelled us to the level of sophistication were recently were. Now though there seems to be degeneration in this country wherever you look. I think it has a lot to do with anger. When someone gets angry their IQ drops. Each day the newspapers deliberately make their audience angry. it's like drug. Really? Sophistic Greeks were a long time before the 18th century. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 14, 2023 19:53:18 GMT
Following a landmark case involving a BNP member in South Wales, there does not even need to be an identifiable victim for a successful prosecution to be brought. It's sufficient that the testimony given by the 'any other person' is judged by the court to be 'compelling enough'. It's all very reminiscent of the Third Reich where 'any other person' could denounce you to the Gestapo for listening to the BBC. www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bnp-member-fined-unique-race-2314926That was nearly 20 years ago! Did it end up being a landmark case? Has there been a slew of similar cases that have had the same outcome citing this one as precedent ? 'Landmark case' wasn't my nomenclature, but the BBC's, after an appeal in the Crown Court.
It's now firmly established in case law that there does not have to be an identifiable victim in order to bring a successful prosecution for 'race crime'.
But as to whether or not there has been a 'slew' of similar cases, I couldn't say. What I can say is that you'd have to remarkably stupid to try it on after this ruling, so I'd imagine most people so inclined would think better of such utterances, particularly when there is anyone else around who hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 14, 2023 20:00:04 GMT
That was nearly 20 years ago! Did it end up being a landmark case? Has there been a slew of similar cases that have had the same outcome citing this one as precedent ? 'Landmark case' wasn't my nomenclature, but the BBC's, after an appeal in the Crown Court.
It's now firmly established in case law that there does not have to be an identifiable victim in order to bring a successful prosecution for 'race crime'.
But as to whether or not there has been a 'slew' of similar cases, I couldn't say. What I can say is that you'd have to remarkably stupid to try it on after this ruling, so I'd imagine most people so inclined would think better of such utterances, particularly when there is anyone else around who hear it.
Why would you though? What a stupid and pointless thing to do. What would it achieve (aside from a potential audience with a judge) The one I feel sorry for is the poor boy's mother. No doubt she had to pay the fine and court costs for him. She was the real victim. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 14, 2023 20:12:15 GMT
"Why would you though?"
The underlying point here is that you don't even have to have done what you're accused of. It's enough that someone 'credible' is motivated to denounce you to the authorities and stand up in court to testify to that effect. In this case the alleged culprit is particularly unsympathetic, being a BNP member, but next time it could be you.
The case law is now in place. In order for a racial crime to have been commited, no actual victim needs to be identified, it is sufficient that 'any other person' testifies that such a crime has been commited and the court believes him/her.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 14, 2023 21:56:03 GMT
Following a landmark case involving a BNP member in South Wales, there does not even need to be an identifiable victim for a successful prosecution to be brought. It's sufficient that the testimony given by the 'any other person' is judged by the court to be 'compelling enough'. It's all very reminiscent of the Third Reich where 'any other person' could denounce you to the Gestapo for listening to the BBC. www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bnp-member-fined-unique-race-2314926I had to smile at your reference to the Third Reich when the crime he committed was to shout Sieg Heil at a Pakistani woman. Did he deny shouting Sieg Heil? No. Does anyone doubt that shouting Sieg Heil at a Pakistani was intended to be racist and was racist. No. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 15, 2023 8:16:59 GMT
Following a landmark case involving a BNP member in South Wales, there does not even need to be an identifiable victim for a successful prosecution to be brought. It's sufficient that the testimony given by the 'any other person' is judged by the court to be 'compelling enough'. It's all very reminiscent of the Third Reich where 'any other person' could denounce you to the Gestapo for listening to the BBC. www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bnp-member-fined-unique-race-2314926I had to smile at your reference to the Third Reich when the crime he committed was to shout Sieg Heil at a Pakistani woman. Did he deny shouting Sieg Heil? No. Does anyone doubt that shouting Sieg Heil at a Pakistani was intended to be racist and was racist. No. Where did you read he admitted the charge? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 15, 2023 10:22:20 GMT
And what Pakistani woman?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 15, 2023 10:26:54 GMT
It seems that you are guilty until proven innocent with crimes against woke .
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 15, 2023 19:52:46 GMT
I had to smile at your reference to the Third Reich when the crime he committed was to shout Sieg Heil at a Pakistani woman. Did he deny shouting Sieg Heil? No. Does anyone doubt that shouting Sieg Heil at a Pakistani was intended to be racist and was racist. No. Where did you read he admitted the charge? My assumption as he was caught red handed. But I forgot he was a BNP member and therefore terminally stupid. Instead he refused to speak. As do all totally innocent people. After his arrest, he had been given several opportunities to make a statement, but had refused to speak. In court on Tuesday he said, "Basically, I do not remember anything about that morning. I am completely surprised about how this case came about. "I believe Mrs Rees is mistaken, that is all. I just took my car to the garage for an MOT and that was that." He said he refused to answer questions after his arrest because he felt "intimidated". He told the magistrates, "I thought I was safer saying nothing. I felt intimidated." |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 15, 2023 20:08:43 GMT
But again, where and when did he confess to the charge, which was your original claim? And who was the Pakistani women who he is said to have abused?
In considering your answer to the first question, why would he then lodge an appeal at the Crown Court if he had already confessed?
|
|
