Hate crime investigation after Caitlyn Jenner 'suffers vile transphobic abuse'

Not_A_Racist

The left continues to use labels and sarcasm. You are not convincing anyone new by using those methods, and it's possible that you are driving away undecided people.


Why won't the left address the point that insisting on behaviour is often counterproductive?

pangbang

circadian wrote: »

You got me. Well played.

I can hear the gears grinding in your brain from here, youre ALMOST about to make a point or argument, or even answer the question.

jobbridge4life

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Pangbang is correct to note that forcing people to behave in a particular way is often counter productive.

Look at the Irish language in Irish schools. Many people cannot speak a full sentence after 12 years of study. The reason for the poor performance is widely considered to be the fact that Irish is mandatory.


Insisting that people accept transgenderism is counterproductive. It is creating huge divides in society. Many people who at one stage were completely indifferent to gay rights and transgenderism are now completely against those things because of what they perceive as bullying by the liberal left.


Our societies have never been as polarised as they are now. That is not a good thing.

I don't think the situation described is a hate crime. The police are wasting their time and are bringing themselves into disrepute.

If you are the kind of person who thinks being called out for rude, or offensive behaviour is a justification for suddenly believing that others deserve less legal equality, or deserve to face discrimination then it says alot more about you than society.

It is funny though. We never hear that the prohibition of theft is driving up rates of thieving, we never hear that the prohibition of rape is making people rape others...

Not_A_Racist

The person isn't merely being called out for rude behaviour. They are being investigated by the police for a criminal act.

Any chance you could stop with the misrepresentation and lies?

jobbridge4life

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

The person isn't being called out for rude behaviour. They are being investigated by the police for a criminal act.

Any chance you could stop with the misrepresentation and lies?

Point out once where you confined your comments to the criminal case at hand? I read your post in the context of the discussion as it has evolved did not lie or misrepresent anyone. I'll thank you for acknowledging that.

Lux23

I think that is a pretty hateful thing to say to another human being. The reason we have hate crime legislation is because there are so many people who are incapable of having an interaction with minorities without being offensive. And if you can't see the probably with shouting "get your dick out" to a trans woman than you're the reason we have hate crime legislation.

pangbang

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Quite and as I said I don't and any cursory examinations of your posts in this thread should be quite sufficient for anyone to see why.



No, hon. I'm saying your hypothesis was nonsense, and flatly incorrect based on the evidence, which you haven't dealt with. So the only thing pointless here (aside from perhaps engaging with at all) is your useless attempts at obfuscation.



That is really funny because I was responding to you when you said apropos of nothing that my view of manners was the opposite of most peoples. Sighburger.

Holy shemolians.....my hypothesis was that things MIGHT have been BETTER in the past, MIGHT be BETTER without the sensationalism attached to such issues. How is that nonsense? How can you categorically, and obviously vehemently, state that its nonsense??

If I stated that things were DEFINITELY better in the past, youd have a reason to call it nonsense.

And yet you are accusing ME of obfuscation? Instead of debating my much more relevant and larger point that sensationalism and thought-police are a bad thing, you seem more interested in derailing it into something about a hypothetical I made up about the west coast of Ireland...

What are arguing here exactly? That my guess cant be proven? Well yeah......great.

And I don't understand your point about manners, genuinely. My point was that manners, in this context, can easily be at odds between people. There are people who swear by biology and would say that being instructed to call a genetic man by a womans name is "rude". And there are others who would subscribe more to social science and say that NOT calling them by a womans name is rude.

Why cant you see that? Or is that you don't want to see it? And, for the sake of clarity, I don't really know what to say about this name issue, but I do understand that their are relevant arguments to both sides.

Sosurface

Is this more appropriate?

Really Interested

pangbang wrote: »

I'm not really addressing the specific incident in the thread, much more so the bigger picture.

Are you really asking me should a an assault not be reported? What do you think is going to happen, that I'm gonna slip up, jump into the street in my Nazi pyjamas and shout "no! crime should not be reported!"

Come on!

I'm more concerned with the sensationalism attached to such issues, and the unintended consequences of such. That's it.

Yes and the news article also says someone threw something at her. It is my view that should be investigated and the issue of the comment made by someone in the crowd should rightly be ignored.

Really Interested

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

The person isn't merely being called out for rude behaviour. They are being investigated by the police for a criminal act.

Any chance you could stop with the misrepresentation and lies?

Yes and one of those acts is a possible assault.

Not_A_Racist

I didn't refer to 'acts'. I said 'act'. Your comprehension is poor.

I was referring to the hate crime investigation in relation to the innocuous comment that bruce should get his dick out.

That comment is not a crime and the police should ignore it.


Assault is assualt and should be investigated.

Lux23

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

I didn't refer to 'acts'. I said 'act'. Your comprehension is poor.

I was referring to the hate crime investigation in relation to the innocuous comment that bruce should get his dick out.

That comment is not a crime and the police should ignore it.


Assault is assualt and should be investigated.

How is get your dick out an innocuous comment? If someone said that to Enda Kenny during a press conference tomorrow - would you think that was OK? And you're really giving your prejudices away by referring to Caitlyn Jenner as "Bruce" - it is hard to take your comments seriously.

Sosurface

Lux23 wrote: »

How is get your dick out an innocuous comment? If someone said that to Enda Kenny during a press conference tomorrow - would you think that was OK? And you're really giving your prejudices away by referring to Caitlyn Jenner as "Bruce" - it is hard to take your comments seriously.

What about "Killed anyone lately? you alcoholic attention seeking bag of ****." Still a hate crime?

Lux23

Sosurface wrote: »

What about "Killed anyone lately? you alcoholic attention seeking bag of ****." Still a hate crime?

I have no idea what constitutes a hate crime as I am not a judge. In our system and the UK system it is only a judge/jury who can make those kinds of decisions. And so this is why enforcement agencies carry out investigations.

darced

This post has been deleted.

General Butt Naked

Caitlin Jenner: 'don't think I'm a woman? Then suck my big fat hairy dick!'

Not_A_Racist

I can't quote posts but yes, I do think that the comment 'Bruce, will you get your dick out' is fairly innocuous.

I used the name Bruce in the post as it is part of the supposedly offensive comment.

I agree and concede that the comment is somewhat offensive, but I don't think it should be criminal.

In relation to Enda Kenny I have rang his constituency office and made much worse feedback than that.

It shouldn't be a crime to have a negative opinion of someone, nor should it be a crime to express that opinion.

In the past we shared a common society and common values. That's why people were largely nice to one another. In a fractured multicultural society like we now have we should expect much more abuse in public. People hate one another now.


If someone asked Enda Kenny to get his dick out I'd expect Enda to reply that he's all dick.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Lux23 wrote: »

I have no idea what constitutes a hate crime as I am not a judge. In our system and the UK system it is only a judge/jury who can make those kinds of decisions. And so this is why enforcement agencies carry out investigations.

Actually, this isn't true. Under UK law, it is the victim who can decide if they feel it is a hate crime or not. Even more frightening, is that evidence is not necessary! You can see why lefties were falling over themselves to get this law passed, it's a free ticket to eternal victimhood. Any dissent and you can have someone jailed on a 'perceived' hate crime.:

Under their official guidance, hate crime is now deemed to be ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice.’

Proof of such intent is not necessarily required, the guidance adds: ‘Evidence of … hostility is not required … [The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor.’

http://www.cps.gov.uk/northeast/victims_and_witnesses/hate_crime/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Brexit-hate-crime-myth-claims-epidemic-race-crimes-referendum-simply-false.html

Really Interested

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Actually, this isn't true. Under UK law, it is the victim who can decide if they feel it is a hate crime or not. Even more frightening, is that evidence is not necessary! You can see why lefties were falling over themselves to get this law passed, it's a free ticket to eternal victimhood. Any dissent and you can have someone jailed on a 'perceived' hate crime.:

Under their official guidance, hate crime is now deemed to be ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice.’

Proof of such intent is not necessarily required, the guidance adds: ‘Evidence of … hostility is not required … [The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor.’

http://www.cps.gov.uk/northeast/victims_and_witnesses/hate_crime/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Brexit-hate-crime-myth-claims-epidemic-race-crimes-referendum-simply-false.html

From my reading this offence can not be a hate crime.

"Section 146 does not, however, apply in cases of transphobia where hostility is based on the victim’s gender identity or presumed gender identity." Paragraph 3.2.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/htc_policy.pdf

Also from my reading of the above "get your cock out" would not be a crime or even a hate crime. The relevant legislation from my reading covers say a GBH charge where it is shown that the crime was because or aggregated by gender, sexual orentation or race etc.

That is why in this case in my opinion the alleged assault is important. If the person who shouted the abuse is not the same person who threw something (and I am open to correction on this) then no crime has been committed, if on the other hand it is proved that the alleged assault and comment was the same person then a possible crime. But I go back to the quote above seems to say that transphobia is not covered by the relevant legislation. But I am happy for someone to give me the English and Welsh law on this.

sabat

suicide_circus wrote: »

So ignorant. Her penis is now inside out and inside her body. How can she "get it out"

Still has an intact cock afaik. I believe the technical term for someone like this is "a ladyboy." I do think that things can go astray when the developing foetus begins divvying up mind/gender/body and that transexualism is a genuine condition, but there's something about this case that just always seemed a bit off to me.

jobbridge4life

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

I can't quote posts but yes, I do think that the comment 'Bruce, will you get your dick out' is fairly innocuous.

Why do you think it is innocuous? (That is a genuine question, I am interested to know)

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

I used the name Bruce in the post as it is part of the supposedly offensive comment.

I agree and concede that the comment is somewhat offensive, but I don't think it should be criminal.

So... is it 'supposedly offensive' or 'somewhat offensive'?

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

In relation to Enda Kenny I have rang his constituency office and made much worse feedback than that.

This is a genuine comment, not a 'snarky liberal aside'.

If you are making calls to Kenny's constituency office, in the first instance you are speaking to fairly low paid employees, who are not soldiers of kin but administrative employees trying to earn a wage. If you feel okay subjecting them to stuff worse than the subject of this issue I strongly advise you cease doing so immediately. Most especially if you have done so on a recurring basis. This could be considered harassment and lead to negative consequences.

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

It shouldn't be a crime to have a negative opinion of someone, nor should it be a crime to express that opinion.

It isn't a crime to have a negative opinion of someone so, with respect, that is a canard. Expressing a 'negative opinion' can have multiple meanings. Should I be free to tell my black boss that I think she is inferior to me genetically, and that I think women like her deserve to be raped? Should I be free to tell my gay neighbour that he is a ****** who God hates and he deserves to burn in hell? Again serious question, that I am interested in hearing your opinion on.

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

In the past we shared a common society and common values. That's why people were largely nice to one another. In a fractured multicultural society like we now have we should expect much more abuse in public. People hate one another now.

I take complete issue with this. When were we a 'common society' with 'common values'? When women were routinely imprisoned for becoming pregnant before marriage? When gay men were routinely criminalised, discriminated against, even murdered without sanction? When illegitmate children enjoyed, by State sanctioned law, less rights? When children were routinely raped by clergy and state employees with impunity? When was this blissful past when things were better?

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

If someone asked Enda Kenny to get his dick out I'd expect Enda to reply that he's all dick.

Genuine Q again, do you realise that there is a difference between asking Enda Kenny to get his dick out and asking a transgender woman who has faced that pain and struggle all their life, decided to go through a painful and public transition, including permanent surgical intervention, to get their dick out?

riemann

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

So to remove any ambiguity, Caitlin Jenner should be referred to as 'she' from here on.

Lol, all hail king of the pronouns

General Butt Naked

riemann wrote: »

Lol, all hail king of the pronouns

Don't you mean queen?

jobbridge4life

General Butt Naked wrote: »

Don't you mean queen?

Do you honestly think you are being witty? Like do,honestly think this is a funny joke?

General Butt Naked

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Do you honestly think you are being witty? Like do,honestly think this is a funny joke?

Yes.

jobbridge4life

General Butt Naked wrote: »

Yes.

Why? What makes it funny?

gitzy16v

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why? What makes it funny?

If you need it explained to you,what's the point....humour is subjective...you didn't get it...move on!

General Butt Naked

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why? What makes it funny?

I like poking fun at the gender hysteria. Respect muh pronouns!

I also don't like being told how to think, what to say, and having the threat of hate crime laws being used against me because I insulted Queen Jenner.

jobbridge4life

sabat wrote: »

Still has an intact cock afaik.

Incorrect. Jenner recently confirmed in a televised interview that she had gone ahead with gender reassignment surgery.

sabat wrote: »

I believe the technical term for someone like this is "a ladyboy."

Incorrect. The correct term is a 'pre-op' but even that is considered impolite. I don't obsess about the genitalia of the people I meet. Why do you?

sabat wrote: »

I do think that things can go astray when the developing foetus begins divvying up mind/gender/body and that transexualism is a genuine condition, but there's something about this case that just always seemed a bit off to me.

Specifically what?

Yourself isit

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If you are the kind of person who thinks being called out for rude, or offensive behaviour is a justification for suddenly believing that others deserve less legal equality, or deserve to face discrimination then it says alot more about you than society.

It is funny though. We never hear that the prohibition of theft is driving up rates of thieving, we never hear that the prohibition of rape is making people rape others...

The prohibition of speech is of course a whole other thing.

The left needs to go back to class and economics and leave identity politics to the yanks.

gitzy16v

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Incorrect. Jenner recently confirmed in a televised interview that she had gone ahead with gender reassignment surgery.



Incorrect. The correct term is a 'pre-op' but even that is considered impolite. I don't obsess about the genitalia of the people I meet. Why do you?



Specifically what?

Obsessed about telling others what to be thinking though.

General Butt Naked

Say something mean to a transgender and you run the risk of being hauled in by the secret police for hate crime!

Guess we know who the real privileged are.

pjohnson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If you are the kind of person who thinks being called out for rude, or offensive behaviour is a justification for suddenly believing that others deserve less legal equality, or deserve to face discrimination then it says alot more about you than society.

It is funny though. We never hear that the prohibition of theft is driving up rates of thieving, we never hear that the prohibition of rape is making people rape others...

Oh were at the "rape" part of the discussion already? That was quicker than normal.

gizmo81

No it is not.

sabat wrote: »

Still has an intact cock afaik. I believe the technical term for someone like this is "a ladyboy." I do think that things can go astray when the developing foetus begins divvying up mind/gender/body and that transexualism is a genuine condition, but there's something about this case that just always seemed a bit off to me.

jobbridge4life

gitzy16v wrote: »

If you need it explained to you,what's the point....humour is subjective...you didn't get it...move on!

This is a discussion board. The entire purpose of it is for us to discuss and debate. As such, I am interested in understanding what people find funny in mocking transgender people. If you find it funny, and funny enough to repost publicly (and clearly you're not alone) then I think you should be capable of explaining the humour in it?

jobbridge4life

Yourself isit wrote: »

The prohibition of speech is of course a whole other thing.

The left needs to go back to class and economics and leave identity politics to the yanks.

This is utterly meaningless, standard moany right wing whinging. We live in a society where free speech is balanced against other rights and laws all the time. And have done so long before anyone gave a **** about transgender people.

Really Interested

General Butt Naked wrote: »

Say something mean to a transgender and you run the risk of being hauled in by the secret police for hate crime!

Guess we know who the real privileged are.

No in fact as I believe transgender does not seem to be covered by the law. Also according to CPS very few complaints. Are you aware of any person in Ireland or the UK who was "mean" to a transgender person being prosecuted?

jobbridge4life

General Butt Naked wrote: »

Yes.

Great. And I asked why? What is funny about mocking transgender people?

gitzy16v

jobbridge4life wrote: »

This is a discussion board. The entire purpose of it is for us to discuss and debate. As such, I am interested in understanding what people find funny in mocking transgender people. If you find it funny, and funny enough to repost publicly (and clearly you're not alone) then I think you should be capable of explaining the humour in it?

You wouldn't understand,it humour some get it some don't...you don't that's ok...others do,that's ok too...I don't have to explain anything to anybody of the internet...but your welcome to ask...

General Butt Naked

jobbridge4life wrote: »

This is a discussion board. The entire purpose of it is for us to discuss and debate. As such, I am interested in understanding what people find funny in mocking transgender people. If you find it funny, and funny enough to repost publicly (and clearly you're not alone) then I think you should be capable of explaining the humour in it?

This humour exists because people have had it with pc and the regressive left.

Check out A Wyatt Mann for example. When people are told 'don't say that' they will become deliberately offensive to piss of the thought police.

jobbridge4life

gitzy16v wrote: »

You wouldn't understand,it humour some get it some don't...you don't that's ok...others do,that's ok too...I don't have to explain anything to anybody of the internet...but your welcome to ask...

And I have done. Repeatedly and in each instance you have failed to reply a response.

Do you not know yourself? Or is it that you are afraid to say? Come on chick... I'm dying to know.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Jesus we've to explain humour now.
Guess we will have to add transgenderes into the same group as muslims now, the group that can't be mocked.

gitzy16v

General Butt Naked wrote: »

This humour exists because people have had it with pc and the regressive left.

Check out A Wyatt Mann for example. When people are told 'don't say that' they will become deliberately offensive to piss of the thought police.

What the poster fails to realise is that comedy is very often offensive in nature

pjohnson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Come on chick...

Did you just assume that persons gender? And then use a patronising term for said gender.

#OMG #StopTheHate

gitzy16v

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And I have done. Repeatedly and in each instance you have failed to reply a response.

Do you not know yourself? Or is it that you are afraid to say? Come on chick... I'm dying to know.

I found it funny,what more do you need to know...
GTFO with your "chick"...whats that supposed to imply

General Butt Naked

Really Interested wrote: »

No in fact as I believe transgender does not seem to be covered by the law. Also according to CPS very few complaints. Are you aware of any person in Ireland or the UK who was "mean" to a transgender person being prosecuted?

Then why is this guy being investigated for hate crime?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Great. And I asked why? What is funny about mocking transgender people?

It pisses off people like you, members of our self appointed morality police. No doubt you dislike religion but you not much better, denouncing others for their heresy.

gizmo81

Comedy that makes someone feel bad about themselves is not comedy!

jobbridge4life

General Butt Naked wrote: »

This humour exists because people have had it with pc and the regressive left.

That says why the humour exists. It doesn't explain why you personally find it funny which is what I am trying to explore.

General Butt Naked wrote: »

Check out A Wyatt Mann for example. When people are told 'don't say that' they will become deliberately offensive to piss of the thought police.

So in other words you find deliberately mocking and laughing at vulnerable funny? So like if I shove a wheel chair crip down the stairs and post a video here y'all will be breaking yer ****s laughing?

jobbridge4life

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Jesus we've to explain humour now.
Guess we will have to add transgenderes into the same group as muslims now, the group that can't be mocked.

No and I haven't suggested it. So maybe take a chill pill babe and give up the auld whiney righty victim complex. #snowflakesareus

gizmo81

You're fighting a losing battle, people like this can't even spell empathy let alone define it.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That says why the humour exists. It doesn't explain why you personally find it funny which is what I am trying to explore.



So in other words you find deliberately mocking and laughing at vulnerable funny? So like if I shove a wheel chair crip down the stairs and post a video here y'all will be breaking yer ****s laughing?