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

pangbang

Really Interested wrote: »

So you think a complaint of assault should not be investigated?

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.

circadian

pangbang wrote: »

No, genius, I didn't say it was a hate campaign. If you read what I said, instead of trying to regurgitate the standard response (is their a handbook yet?)......what I said was that it is unintentionally creating divide.

Nice.

pangbang

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Guy it isn't always the best practice to repeatedly declare by yourself, that others are proving your point.;)

Well what should I do when someone is repeatedly proving my point?

pangbang

circadian wrote: »

Nice.

Oh you got me! :P All argument made up to this point is now null and void!

circadian

pangbang wrote: »

Oh you got me! :P All argument made up to this point is now null and void!

I think other posters have done an excellent job at picking apart your arguments, to be fair.

pangbang

circadian wrote: »

I think other posters have done an excellent job at picking apart your arguments, to be fair.

Well this is interesting now. I doubt you even understand my arguments, let alone be able to read what I wrote.

So would you like to do a "tale of the tape" for everyone to see? A highlight reel of what I said, and how it was "excellently" rebutted?

I think I'll be waiting a long time, but expect the "cant be bothered, don't need to" response.

Not_A_Racist

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.

pangbang

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'll ignore your ad-hominem. You have referred to Jenner by her previous name multiple times in more than one post. I don't accept that this is not deliberate. To say it isn't, when you used in the same post where you were whinging about a Mod instruction about the correct pronoun makes clear your intention.



Yes I'm aware, which if take the time to actually read what I wrote rather than once again indulging in ad-hominem you note that I used the term 'hypothesis' and explained that it hit a brick wall against the evidence.



Nah, I don't accept that, I think the vast majority of people know that it is disrespectful and rude not to use a person's name and instead insist on calling them by name they don't want. I don't think I have the power to dictate, I just think basic manners matters and we'd all be better off if we tried to stick to it and I'm not afraid to put forward my positions.

You are wrong, I did not refer to the person by that name to sneakily get a point across. I'll say it again, your presumption is wrong. I'm intelligent enough to get my points across without having to be underhand. Believe me or not, its on you.

Second bit of bolded text....so youre stating that there was no reason to make the statement. Great. Or as I was intimating, pointless.

Your acceptance of anything is neither here nor there. And again, you go toward proving my point that there is, according to liberal doctrine, "My way, or the high way". Be like that then, refuse to see both sides of everything, refuse to be centrist and understanding. Keep echoing that doctrine though :P

circadian

pangbang wrote: »

Well this is interesting now. I doubt you even understand my arguments, let alone be able to read what I wrote.

So would you like to do a "tale of the tape" for everyone to see? A highlight reel of what I said, and how it was "excellently" rebutted?

I think I'll be waiting a long time, but expect the "cant be bothered, don't need to" response.

You got me. Well played.

jobbridge4life

pangbang wrote: »

You are wrong, I did not refer to the person by that name to sneakily get a point across. I'll say it again, your presumption is wrong. I'm intelligent enough to get my points across without having to be underhand. Believe me or not, its on you.

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.

pangbang wrote: »

Second bit of bolded text....so youre stating that there was no reason to make the statement. Great. Or as I was intimating, pointless.

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.

pangbang wrote: »

Your acceptance of anything is neither here nor there. And again, you go toward proving my point that there is, according to liberal doctrine, "My way, or the high way". Be like that then, refuse to see both sides of everything, refuse to be centrist and understanding. Keep echoing that doctrine though :P

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.

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.