Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

AndrewJRenko

Omackeral wrote: »

Who decides what constitutes a hate-crime? Is it black and white, excuse the pun, or is it on a sliding spectrum. Would jurors, if required, by asked to judge for themselves? Would there have to be people of various colours, belief systems and ability on duty?

Same as any other crime, which works fine in many other jurisdictions.



The Gardai/police investigate and prepare a file, the DPP or equivalent decides if the matter should go to Court, the Judge or the jury (depending on the seriousness) decide if the accused is guilty.


It works fine in many other countries.

pinkyeye

Eric Cartman wrote: »

do you think its acceptable that a man ended up in front of a judge for teaching a dog to do a hitler salute for humour. It is not a sane or just world where that commands a court appearance.

He didn't end up in front of a judge for teaching the dog a salute, he ended up in court because he put it on YouTube but continue on with your bs if you like.

What about him joining UKIP? That doesn't show a bias in anyway no?

cookie1977

Eric Cartman wrote: »

do you think its acceptable that a man ended up in front of a judge for teaching a dog to do a hitler salute for humour. It is not a sane or just world where that commands a court appearance.

We're back on Stephen's favourite topic now...motive.
Fawlty towers hitler salute - humourous
Comedian who trains dog to do hitler salute and joins party which has an active nazi as an advisor - not humourous

Eric Cartman

cookie1977 wrote: »

We're back on Stephen's favourite topic now...motive.
Fawlty towers hitler salute - humourous
Comedian who trains dog to do hitler salute and joins party which has an active nazi as an advisor - not humourous

the court case was long before ukip , and who is the active nazi advisor ?

Eric Cartman

pinkyeye wrote: »

He didn't end up in front of a judge for teaching the dog a salute, he ended up in court because he put it on YouTube but continue on with your bs if you like.

What about him joining UKIP? That doesn't show a bias in anyway no?

explain to me how UKIP as a political party and their policies in any way resemble The NSDAP (Nazi) party ?

Odhinn

Stephen15 wrote: »

Because I support justice being served. As a white person if I become a victim of crime I would like to see the perpetrator brought to justice. I would not like to see a situation where an <insert minority here> who gets attacked perpetrator gets a harsher sentence becuase of their race.

Out of curiosity - do you think all "black" folk are equivalent and equal to the "white" folk?

cookie1977

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the court case was long before ukip , and who is the active nazi advisor ?

There's so many I never know where to start:


https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2313229/tommy-robinson-becomes-ukip-advisor
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ukip-mep-in-hitler-advice-row-11363925881904

Stephen15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Same as any other crime, which works fine in many other jurisdictions.



The Gardai/police investigate and prepare a file, the DPP or equivalent decides if the matter should go to Court, the Judge or the jury (depending on the seriousness) decide if the accused is guilty.


It works fine in many other countries.

Can you give examples of hate crime laws work well in order jurisdictions? Look at the UK where the hate crime laws clearly do not work as the police seem more interested in policing offensive tweets despite the fact the UK is in the midst of a murder epidemic.

People are wondering how can it be proven that a crime is a hate crime. Is it really worthwhile wasting Garda time and/or the time of the DPP and courts investigating whether hate crime when they should be taking care of other crime.

Eric Cartman

cookie1977 wrote: »

There's so many I never know where to start:


https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2313229/tommy-robinson-becomes-ukip-advisor
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ukip-mep-in-hitler-advice-row-11363925881904

a man who 'emulates hitlers speaking style' according to somebody at bt, not exactly a hard hitting news source,

and tommy robinson is just an islamaphobic idiot, they invited him to make one submission about muslim rape gangs. He wasn't even a member and not a nazi even by his own affiliations.

also going by the news sources youre digging up, you clearly just googled 'ukip nazi' and are posting whatever links stick. I don't believe for one second that the digitalspy forums and bt news are regular reads for yourself.

Stephen15

Odhinn wrote: »

Out of curiosity - do you think all "black" folk are equivalent and equal to the "white" folk?

Yes

cookie1977

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a man who 'emulates hitlers speaking style' according to somebody at bt, not exactly a hard hitting news source,

and tommy robinson is just an islamaphobic idiot, they invited him to make one submission about muslim rape gangs. He wasn't even a member and not a nazi even by his own affiliations.

also going by the news sources youre digging up, you clearly just googled 'ukip nazi' and are posting whatever links stick. I don't believe for one second that the digitalspy forums and bt news are regular reads for yourself.

As I said I never know where to start:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-nazi-nigel-farage-proudly-4761109
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630582/Ukip-engulfed-fresh-extremism-storm-one-candidate-pictured-showing-Nazi-themed-tattoos-suggests-shooting-poofters.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/11/leadership-hopeful-warns-wrong-leader-could-turn-ukip-into-uks-nazi-party-henry-bolton

Kimsang

Eric Cartman wrote: »

do you think its acceptable that a man ended up in front of a judge for teaching a dog to do a hitler salute for humour. It is not a sane or just world where that commands a court appearance.

This is what the judge said at his sentencing:

“On the whole evidence, including your own, applying the law as made by Parliament and interpreted by the most senior courts in this land, I found it proved that the video you posted, using a public communications network, was grossly offensive and contained menacing, anti-Semitic and racist material"

What other material should be censored? Monty Python, The Producers, anything George Carlin.. etc.. this skit by Jonathan Pie..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0

"It was a joke you *****" - Jonathan Pie

"We're not allowed to make fun of Nazis, in case it gets misinterpreted" -Jonathan Pie

Stephen15

cookie1977 wrote: »

There's so many I never know where to start:


https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2313229/tommy-robinson-becomes-ukip-advisor
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ukip-mep-in-hitler-advice-row-11363925881904

And I was accused of whataboutery now your bringing up Tommy Robinson

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

You don't know exactly what the trauma is for a person who is a victim of crime. A member of a minority group who is a victim of a prejudice motivated crime could be a stronger person who is less traumatised than an Irish person who is a victim of a non prejudice motivated crime.

We do know that though. There is a lot of evidence out there and it is widely accepted that hate crime is likely to have a more significant impact on its victims than non-hate motivated offences. We also know that many states and the EU specifically legally recognise hate crime because of the impact of hate crime generally on individuals, groups and society generally. It is not as if the idea of hate crime has been plucked out of nowhere for simply no reason.

pinkyeye

Eric Cartman wrote: »

explain to me how UKIP as a political party and their policies in any way resemble The NSDAP (Nazi) party ?

Ah stop would ya. :D:D:D

Stephen15

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We do know that though. There is a lot of evidence out there and it is widely accepted that hate crime is likely to have a more significant impact on its victims than non-hate motivated offences. We also know that many states and the EU specifically legally recognise hate crime because of the impact of hate crime generally on individuals, groups and society generally. It is not as if the idea of hate crime has been plucked out of nowhere for simply no reason.

Well perhaps the impact on the victim can be taken into account on an individual case by case basis which is then taken into account when it comes to sentencing. If it is the case that a prejudice motivated crime or whatever you like to call it has a greater impact on the victim then that should be met with a greater sentence for the perpetrator so effectively that achieves the same result as your proposed hate crime laws.

pinkyeye

Stephen15 wrote: »

Well perhaps the impact on the victim can be taken into account on an individual case by case basis which is then taken into account when it comes to sentencing. If it is the case that a prejudice motivated crime or whatever you like to call it has a greater impact on the victim then that should be met with a greater sentence for the perpetrator so effectivelynthat achieves the same result as your proposed hate crime laws.

So why do you have a problem with hate crime laws then?

Eric Cartman

pinkyeye wrote: »

Ah stop would ya. :D:D:D

its a valid question, you made the claim, go on. using written policy information, show me the comparible manifesto's between ukip and the nazi party

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

Well perhaps the impact on the victim can be taken into account on an individual case by case basis which is then taken into account when it comes to sentencing. If it is the case that a prejudice motivated crime or whatever you like to call it has a greater impact on the victim then that should be met with a greater sentence for the perpetrator so effectivelynthat achieves the same result as your proposed hate crime laws.

Why? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that there is wider impact not just on individuals. Its kind of almost like you feel that your whiteness shouldnt be seen as inferior. Its almost as well like you refuse to acknowledge that hate crimes exist and refuse to acknowledge their impact. Why is that?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Same as any other crime, which works fine in many other jurisdictions.

That's grand. For me though, (and I work within our justice system, FWIW), I feel there are many more urgent issues that need addressing before anything of this nature is considered or necessary.

pinkyeye

pinkyeye wrote: »

So why do you have a problem with hate crime laws then?

He literally explained how they're pretty redundant in the very post you quoted.

Stephen15

pinkyeye wrote: »

So why do you have a problem with hate crime laws then?

So if two people are victims of a mugging both equally traumatised and received the same injuries and the attacks were very similar but one had a racial element and the other did not younthink the one with the racial element should get a tougher sentence. .

Do you think that is fair on the person who a victim of a non racially motivated attack that someone whondid the exact same thing gets a tougher sentence? It's also verybhard tomprove and quite frankly a waste of resources policing.

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

So if two people are victims of a mugging both equally traumatised and received the same injuries and the attacks were very similar but one had a racial element and the other did not younthink the one with the racial element should get a tougher sentence. .

Do you think that is fair on the person who a victim of a non racially motivated attack that someone whondid the exact same thing gets a tougher sentence? It's also verybhard tomprove and quite frankly a waste of resources policing.

Yes it is perfectly fair because that person was not specifically targeted because of their identity.

Overheal

Omackeral wrote: »

He literally explained how they're pretty redundant in the very post you quoted.

I don’t see how they’re redundant, rather they codify in statute how the courts are to consider such cases in addition to other factors. This prevents weak Court precedent from weakening punishments to such crimes by way of “boys will be boys” style rulings and suspended sentencings.

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

Can you give examples of hate crime laws work well in order jurisdictions? Look at the UK where the hate crime laws clearly do not work as the police seem more interested in policing offensive tweets despite the fact the UK is in the midst of a murder epidemic.

Really? How many hate tweets have the police investigated and how many murders have they investigated? I'm interested to see how you came to the conclusion that they're more interested in tweets? I'm trusting that you actually have some real numbers behind these points, and you're not just using the coverage on your alt-right sites and discussions as your measure.

Stephen15 wrote: »

People are wondering how can it be proven that a crime is a hate crime. Is it really worthwhile wasting Garda time and/or the time of the DPP and courts investigating whether hate crime when they should be taking care of other crime.

It's not an either/or choice. In investigating a crime, Gardai gather the necessary information to decide whether to prosecute a hate crime or not. Judge or jury make a decision about what is proven, just like any other crime. And it works fine in many other jurisdictions.

pinkyeye

Stephen15 wrote: »

So if two people are victims of a mugging both equally traumatised and received the same injuries and the attacks were very similar but one had a racial element and the other did not younthink the one with the racial element should get a tougher sentence. .

Do you think that is fair on the person who a victim of a non racially motivated attack that someone whondid the exact same thing gets a tougher sentence? It's also verybhard tomprove and quite frankly a waste of resources policing.

Yes I think it's completely fair and I'll explain why.

Because it points out to people that you can NOT decide to attack someone purely based on their race, difference, sexuality etc.

And will perhaps provide some deterrent.

At least I live in hope.

Stephen15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really? How many hate tweets have the police investigated and how many murders have they investigated? I'm interested to see how you came to the conclusion that they're more interested in tweets? I'm trusting that you actually have some real numbers behind these points, and you're not just using the coverage on your alt-right sites and discussions as your measure.

I couldn't find exact figures about hate crimes in the UK but I know the police are taking an interest in offensive comments online in fact the police are even admitting they are taking an interest in non crime incidents when their job is to be investigating and preventing CRIME.

https://twitter.com/syptweet/status/1038891067381350401?s=19

Meanwhile there is a crime epidemic in the UK with murder through the roof. Btw it is not a knife epidemic it is a murder epidemic as most who use knifes use it with the intent to murder another another individual not assault them. In my belief anyone caught using a knife to attack someone should charged with either murder or attempted murder.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

Blueshoe

Stephen15 wrote: »

I couldn't find exact figures about hate crimes in the UK but I know the police are taking an interest in offensive comments online in fact the police are even admitting they are taking an interest in non crime incidents when their job is to be investigating and preventing CRIME.

https://twitter.com/syptweet/status/1038891067381350401?s=19

Meanwhile there is a crime epidemic in the UK with murder through the roof. Btw it is not a knife epidemic it is a murder epidemic as most who use knifes use it with the intent to murder another another individual not assault them. In my belief anyone caught using a knife to attack someone should charged with either murder or attempted murder.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

Have a look at London 999 feed on twitter. The daily violence is on another level over there

Stephen15

pinkyeye wrote: »

Yes I think it's completely fair and I'll explain why.

Because it points out to people that you can NOT decide to attack someone purely based on their race, difference, sexuality etc.

And will perhaps provide some deterrent.

At least I live in hope.

No it is not acceptable to attack someone for any reason FULL STOP. Pointing out to people that they can not attack purely based on their race, difference, sexuality etc. suggests to some scumbags that it is acceptable to attack someone if it is not based on the factors which you outline.

The deterent should be tougher sentences across the board for all crimes

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

I couldn't find exact figures about hate crimes in the UK but I know the police are taking an interest in offensive comments online in fact the police are even admitting they are taking an interest in non crime incidents when their job is to be investigating and preventing CRIME.

https://twitter.com/syptweet/status/1038891067381350401?s=19

Meanwhile there is a crime epidemic in the UK with murder through the roof. Btw it is not a knife epidemic it is a murder epidemic as most who use knifes use it with the intent to murder another another individual not assault them. In my belief anyone caught using a knife to attack someone should charged with either murder or attempted murder.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

So you're claim that they were more interested in investigating tweets was just BS then?

Kimsang

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you're claim that they were more interested in investigating tweets was just BS then?

Well they were told not to investigate the rape gangs because it might be seen as racist, they weren't allowed to stop and search because that was racist, they don't have much left to do than go online and target little girls that post rap lyrics in tribute to their dead friends.

AndrewJRenko

Kimsang wrote: »

Well they were told not to investigate the rape gangs because it might be seen as racist, they weren't allowed to stop and search because that was racist, they don't have much left to do than go online and target little girls that post rap lyrics in tribute to their dead friends.

And you have reliable sources for all those claims, yeah?

Annasopra

Kimsang wrote: »

Well they were told not to investigate the rape gangs because it might be seen as racist, they weren't allowed to stop and search because that was racist, they don't have much left to do than go online and target little girls that post rap lyrics in tribute to their dead friends.

Stephen was asked a question. You answered it with whataboutery!

Kimsang

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And you have reliable sources for all those claims, yeah?

Yes feel free to look them up.

Sadiq khan has famously backtracked on his campaign promise to end 'racist stop and search'

This is what Labour MP Keighley Ann Cryer said in 2012

"Complaints to social workers and the police were ignored because they were "petrified of being called racist"

The girl who posted rap lyrics name is Chelsea Russell.

Kimsang

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Stephen was asked a question. You answered it with whataboutery!

The question about what the police are more interested in is a red herring. The point was made that people would prefer to see police resources diverted to real and actual crimes and not internet hurt feelings.

The fact that the police do waste an enormous amount of money policing twitter is quite frankly ridiculous, considering how they continue to complain about a lack of funding.

AndrewJRenko

Kimsang wrote: »

Yes feel free to look them up.

Sadiq khan has famously backtracked on his campaign promise to end 'racist stop and search'

This is what Labour MP Keighley Ann Cryer said in 2012

The girl who posted rap lyrics name is Chelsea Russell.

So you're confirming that the stop and search hasn't been stopped then. Interesting.

And you're taking one comment by one MP as gospel. Interesting.

And you've no details about how much time the police are continuing to spend on other crimes. Interesting.

AndrewJRenko

Kimsang wrote: »

The fact that the police do waste an enormous amount of money policing twitter is quite frankly ridiculous, considering how they continue to complain about a lack of funding.

How much is this enormous amount of money please?

Kimsang

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you're confirming that the stop and search hasn't been stopped then. Interesting.

And you're taking one comment by one MP as gospel. Interesting.

And you've no details about how much time the police are continuing to spend on other crimes. Interesting.

Since you're so obtuse, I won't refer you to sources, you can look them up yourself. Stop and search was removed and reintroduced.

Your ignorance is astonishing and only dwarfed by your conviction.

AndrewJRenko

Kimsang wrote: »

Since you're so obtuse, I won't refer you to sources, you can look them up yourself. Stop and search was removed and reintroduced.

Your ignorance is astonishing and only dwarfed by your conviction.

So you're confirming a second time that stop and search is continuing. Interesting.

Stephen15

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes it is perfectly fair because that person was not specifically targeted because of their identity.

So you support inequality when it comes to handing out sentences

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

So you support inequality when it comes to handing out sentences

Do you think that a child with a disability should get additional supports in school?

Stephen15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that a child with a disability should get additional supports in school?

Now that's what I call whataboutery!

Skylinehead

Stephen15 wrote: »

So you support inequality when it comes to handing out sentences

Being a racist isn't protected under discrimination laws.





Unfortunately for you.

davedanon

recedite wrote: »

Blood and soil.
These are the two main ways people get their citizenship.
Jus soli and Jus sanguinis.

Just seen this. Shameful. How dare you.

Overheal

Stephen15 wrote: »

No it is not acceptable to attack someone for any reason FULL STOP. Pointing out to people that they can not attack purely based on their race, difference, sexuality etc. suggests to some scumbags that it is acceptable to attack someone if it is not based on the factors which you outline.

The deterent should be tougher sentences across the board for all crimes

Now I’ve heard you say some ridiculous **** but this is the most convolutedly stupid thing you’ve clutched at yet. As if scumbag racists are suddenly going to go “ah balls, can’t beat up this minority I have a deep seated irrational hatred for, i better wail on this person from my same ethnic background, because that’s the best way to channel my racism.”

Like I mean hey, you’re demonstrably a racist Stephen15, you’ve made that clear: are you going to tell me that you’d (if you were so hypothetically and violently inclined) avoid beating on an immigrant and would instead go curbstomp an anglo such as yourself, because you’re mad at immigrants but you prioritized a stiffer punishment over ‘friendly fire?’ Clearly, deep seated irrational hatred begets commensurately irrational arguments.

You know what else: Anders Breivik mowed down dozens of people who weren’t even immigrants, because he was pissed off about immigrants. Guess what he never said though - ‘well I shot all those camp kids instead because I wanted to avoid it being considered a hate crime.’

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

Now that's what I call whataboutery!

Now that's what I call avoiding the question - why won't you answer?

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

So you support inequality when it comes to handing out sentences

No. Bringing in hate crime legislation is a way to actually work towards adressing structural inequalities.

Annasopra

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that there is wider impact not just on individuals. Its kind of almost like you feel that your whiteness shouldnt be seen as inferior. Its almost as well like you refuse to acknowledge that hate crimes exist and refuse to acknowledge their impact. Why is that?

Intersting you ignore these questions Stephen

pjohnson

These UKIP/Robinson/Farage/GranTurismo/GemGem fanboys are amazing. I mean these acolytes tie themselves in knots trying to deny what they believe out of some fear of being called racist. They seem concerned about "PC" and cry about the "left" and "PC" while also crying about free speech at every chance while they try to gag themselves.

SoundsRight

Gardai state they believe it's a random attack, not a hate crime, and still that 'peace & integration' guy al-Qadri is pushing that it was a hate crime. Ideally he should be arrested for trying to stir up racial tensions. I'm sure the Gardai already keep a close eye on his like anyway.