|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 28, 2024 12:03:35 GMT
It’s not clearly defined by law . You should read your own links .. “From the link: Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.". It’s defined by the one who is offended . In fact The reality is that it’s a subjective subject open to abuse. The ‘ crime’ is subject to whatever the political correct views are at the time . The cult of lefties are introducing a new era of heresy and blasphemy. Dont be hysterical. The decision as to whether the defence or prosecution is supported in law is up to 12 people of all views, agreeing. The same applies in every case brought bwfore a judge and jury. Why do i have to explain this??? Take your own advice. The law is subjective and will reflect the political correct views of the day and open to abuse . It would not be difficult to find 12 people in the past to find a homosexual guilty of illegal activity, jailed or worse . This is a backward step endorsed by followers of the cult of leftie woke. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 28, 2024 13:05:27 GMT
Has it fallen because they have stopped or been stopped. You can make a meal for 30p a day, or at least you could when he said it and I know because I have done it regularly and it is balanced and nutritious. My wife and I often discuss the price of each meal as a little competition. In recent years she has sympathised with those who have to cook on gas or electric. So he is not being stupid, it does require effort though. I can easily break down the meal for you if you wish price wise. I would think he understands many things all too clearly as regards what an MP is there for and that is to raise issues that need raising and addressing. The 'far right' in the house of commons are people who are elected as representatives of all constituents and teh demands of some Muslims that the Labour party design their policies around the wishes of the MCB, who are obliquely representative of only one religious faith and some of their followers tells a tale of power seeking and overt influence over and above the numbers involved. MP's are there to positively represent EVERYONE in their consistuency. How does his comment about the mayor of London do that? Where does this 'positively' come from? They represent all as individuals if they consult them on individual matters but they do not represent the views of all individuals that is an impossibility. His comment as regards the mayor of London is him expressing his opinion as an MP which is what we expect of them. It would be a sad day if they did not. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 28, 2024 13:30:43 GMT
What we have seen is a group of people who dont know what racism is... Yes, they are colloquially known as "Lefties" and think that "Racism" means anything that they disagree with. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 28, 2024 17:38:46 GMT
You obviously don't follow the news. Clearly not. You had better tell me what other ways Muslims are trying to take over the UK. Dont keep me waiting too long. I have to make a tin hat. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 28, 2024 17:45:47 GMT
Dont be hysterical. The decision as to whether the defence or prosecution is supported in law is up to 12 people of all views, agreeing. The same applies in every case brought bwfore a judge and jury. Why do i have to explain this??? Take your own advice. The law is subjective and will reflect the political correct views of the day and open to abuse . It would not be difficult to find 12 people in the past to find a homosexual guilty of illegal activity, jailed or worse . This is a backward step endorsed by followers of the cult of leftie woke. Oddly you seem to agree with Sharia law which does not use juries. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 28, 2024 17:47:07 GMT
What we have seen is a group of people who dont know what racism is... Yes, they are colloquially known as "Lefties" and think that "Racism" means anything that they disagree with. No. They rightly call that stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 28, 2024 17:49:27 GMT
MP's are there to positively represent EVERYONE in their consistuency. How does his comment about the mayor of London do that? Where does this 'positively' come from? They represent all as individuals if they consult them on individual matters but they do not represent the views of all individuals that is an impossibility. His comment as regards the mayor of London is him expressing his opinion as an MP which is what we expect of them. It would be a sad day if they did not. Let me put it anotther way. They are there to speak for the interests of their constituents. Not stir up national division based on race and false accusations. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 28, 2024 17:50:58 GMT
Take your own advice. The law is subjective and will reflect the political correct views of the day and open to abuse . It would not be difficult to find 12 people in the past to find a homosexual guilty of illegal activity, jailed or worse . This is a backward step endorsed by followers of the cult of leftie woke. Oddly you seem to agree with Sharia law which does not use juries. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JurySo pointing out that a law is subjective and open to abuse then refuting your claim that using a jury will make everything ok means I agree with sharia law ? That’s about as dishonest an argument as you can get. You are claiming that the UK courts system can make a poor subjective law , open to abuse ,a good law. Your argument refutes itself . No wonder you stoop to this level of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 28, 2024 17:51:47 GMT
Yes, they are colloquially known as "Lefties" and think that "Racism" means anything that they disagree with. No. They rightly call that stupidity. Yes, and lefties are stupid.
As they repeatedly demonstrate on here...
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 28, 2024 17:59:45 GMT
The twelve would need a basis in reality to make a rational decision. If the standard is 'someone feels x', then that's the standard they are effectively instructed by law to use. Third world gibberish law That is what the lawyers on each side do. Dont you watch crime shows on TV or zome other place? If you seriously dont understand this you have no basis on which to continue this discussion. If you do understand the principle of legal due process in the UK, stop posting as if you are merely creating a world so you can have an argument. It seems to me that you ude this forum as your own boxing ring. You are only happy when you are arguing with someone. I wont be commenting on this nonsense anymore. Frankly i dont lie awake at night worrying about your "difficult" character and your tenuous grasp of reality. And i doubt anyone else does either. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 28, 2024 18:03:03 GMT
So pointing out that a law is subjective and open to abuse then refuting your claim that using a jury will make everything ok means I agree with sharia law ? That’s about as dishonest an argument as you can get. You are claiming that the UK courts system can make a poor subjective law , open to abuse ,a good law. Your argument refutes itself . No wonder you stoop to this level of debate. This makes no sense. The legal system used in the UK and elsewhere was devised in the Middle Ages. You dont support it. Sharia law does not use the jury system. I suggest you would be happier with that system of jurisprudence. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 28, 2024 18:06:49 GMT
The twelve would need a basis in reality to make a rational decision. If the standard is 'someone feels x', then that's the standard they are effectively instructed by law to use. Third world gibberish law That is what the lawyers on each side do. It doesn't make any odds. The standard they are all working to is an unreal one - ie "somebody does (or doesn't) feel x" It's law for and by the mentally ill or pudding-brained. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 28, 2024 18:09:17 GMT
That is what the lawyers on each side do. It doesn't make any odds. The standard they are all working to is an unreal one - ie "somebody does (or doesn't) feel x" It's law for and by the mentally ill or pudding-brained. So the search for proof of events doesnt exist in your grasp of how courts work? You should watch more detective programmes. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 28, 2024 18:12:46 GMT
It doesn't make any odds. The standard they are all working to is an unreal one - ie "somebody does (or doesn't) feel x" It's law for and by the mentally ill or pudding-brained. So the search for proof of events doesnt exist in your grasp of how courts work? You should watch more detective programmes. The events might well be uncontroversial. However, the crime isn't defined primarily in terms of events, but rather the feelings of the 'victim'. Pudding brain law |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 28, 2024 18:22:50 GMT
So the search for proof of events doesnt exist in your grasp of how courts work? You should watch more detective programmes. The events might well be uncontroversial. However, the crime isn't defined primarily in terms of events, but rather the feelings of the 'victim'. Pudding brain law There doesn't even have to be a actual identifiable victim.
The official definition of a 'hate crime' is:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
|
|
