Hate Speech Public Consultation

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

I’ve no issue with Conor Hanly - he’s not making false claims - unlike yourself. It’s your nonsense is what I was calling out. You continue to engage in misrepresentation btw - you’ve no idea if a female majority jury has ever convicted a rapist in this country - none at all - and yet you make that claim. And again - if you don’t want answers - don’t waste everyone’s time by asking questions.

In plain black and white in language surely even you can understand the research clearly states that:

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape"[emphasis mine]

This is a fact. A fact considered notable, nay striking by those who carried out this research. Now because you're on the back foot and know it you've extended it out to "ever" to try and claw back some semblance of an argument. Like I said you are the gift that keeps on giving and consistently too. I'll give you that. Your transparency of bias is welcome I'm sure.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Nope - she isn’t. It’s recorded as a hate incident - clearly defined as a non-crime scenario.

Oh would you go away outa that. Such BS. So you'd be ok with being on the permanent record of being accused of a "hate incident"? My arse you would. Oh but it could never happen to you eh? Debating with you is like wrangling eels. Messy and ultimately pointless.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

In plain black and white in language surely even you can understand the research clearly states that:

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape"[emphasis mine]

This is a fact. A fact considered notable, nay striking by those who carried out this research. Now because you're on the back foot and know it you've extended it out to "ever" to try and claw back some semblance of an argument. Like I said you are the gift that keeps on giving and consistently too. I'll give you that. Your transparency of bias is welcome I'm sure.

Strange that you can’t discern the difference between a sample and a totality. The only person making the claim that a majority female jury have never convicted a rapist in this county is you. The only person claiming that a majority of Irish male juries convict rapists is you. That black and white enough for you?

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh would you go away outa that. Such BS. So you'd be ok with being on the permanent record of being accused of a "hate incident"? My arse you would. Oh but it could never happen to you eh? Debating with you is like wrangling eels. Messy and ultimately pointless.

Not a crime, not a record of an accusation of a crime. Once again you’re engaged in misrepresentation. Is disingenuous your default?

WrenBoy

alastair wrote: »

Strange that you can’t discern the difference between a sample and a totality. The only person making the claim that a majority female jury have never convicted a rapist in this county is you.

So basically the study doesn’t hold any weight unless they started the study from lets say the foundation of the Irish State up to literally today, next week the study is useless because there may be a case in the meantime that wasn’t taken into consideration.

Sir Oxman

alastair wrote: »

Nope - she isn’t. It’s recorded as a hate incident - clearly defined as a non-crime scenario.

And you see no problem with that?

alastair

WrenBoy wrote: »

So basically the study doesn’t hold any weight unless they started the study from lets say the foundation of the Irish State up to literally today, next week the study is useless because there may be a case in the meantime that wasn’t taken into consideration.

The study is very useful. It just doesn’t support the claims made above. That’s down to the poster, not the study.

Ash.J.Williams

getting arrested because you upset someone no thanks

alastair

Sir Oxman wrote: »

And you see no problem with that?

What problem do you have with it?

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

The study is very useful. It just doesn’t support the claims made above. That’s down to the poster, not the study.

Christ almighty, can you read? The head researcher himself exactly states his "striking" surprise at the results that showed a gender bias in rape cases they studied.

Ah, y'know what fuck it, it was amusing enough for a time to observe your heavy handed right on bias and nonsense, with a side order of vested interest, a bias and nonsense just as eye swingeingly daft and avoidant as the usual right wingers, but at this stage I've had enough of your particular brand of bull.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ almighty, can you read? The head researcher himself exactly states his "striking" surprise at the results that showed a gender bias in rape cases they studied.

Ah, y'know what fuck it, it was amusing enough for a time to observe your heavy handed right on bias and nonsense, with a side order of vested interest, a bias and nonsense just as eye swingeingly daft and avoidant as the usual right wingers, but at this stage I've had enough of your particular brand of bull.

I can read. It’s your ability to parse that I suspect is the problem here. You’re making claims that the study does not support. That’s the fact.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

I can read.

what you want to read. Then againthis a consistent thing with you on this and other subjects. To the degree that one can quite easily discern ahead of time your responses. A mixture of "nothing to see here" and "NO! That's wrong". Keep on trucking.

Sir Oxman

Sir Oxman wrote: »

And you see no problem with that?

In their defence, I could accuse you of any current crime (rape, murder, false imprisonment) in the morning. Even if it is completely unfounded and no arrests or charge are ever brought, there's SFA you can do about it. Doesn't mean there's a permanent stain on you / your record. I don't agree with Alastair's views on the hate speech thingy, but there's no merit in the argument that those who misabuse any law run the risk of permanently tarnishing another's good name.

Or, to put it another way, if you were to worry about that sort of crap then you'd never get a any laws passed.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

what you want to read. Then againthis a consistent thing with you on this and other subjects. To the degree that one can quite easily discern ahead of time your responses. A mixture of "nothing to see here" and "NO! That's wrong". Keep on trucking.

Thing is - you are/were wrong. That’s objectively the case - regardless of your mystic meg tirade about me.

AllForIt

WrenBoy wrote: »

Nothing brings communities together like Violent Coercion.

I swear when I read that the first time I saw communists, not communities.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

In their defence, I could accuse you of any current crime (rape, murder, false imprisonment) in the morning. Even if it is completely unfounded and no arrests or charge are ever brought, there's SFA you can do about it. Doesn't mean there's a permanent stain on you / your record. I don't agree with Alastair's views on the hate speech thingy, but there's no merit in the argument that those who misabuse any law run the risk of permanently tarnishing another's good name.

I dunno about that $. There have been enough examples of people's lives being negatively affected by the mere accusation of rape/sexual assault, even when they've been completely exonerated. People have lost jobs, loved ones, even their lives.

Take this example. If you were wrongfully accused of a hate crime, pardon me "hate incident" and that accusation is on record how might a potential employer view it? How would you go about proving a negative with a crime considered so beyond the Pale? If two people decided out of collusion and badness to accuse you of it, you'd be in even more trouble. The no smoke without fire angle would be in play.

I do agree with you that it's a complex area in law and like you said if society was to worry too much about such things it would be hard to get many laws passed, but it's not always so "victimless" either.

Actually on the legal front on this potential legislation: in sexual assault cases there is the quite understandable anonymity for victims/accusers, is that on the table in this legislation? AFAIK it isn't in play with defamation/libel. Genuine question and where would one go to find out?

Sir Oxman

alastair wrote: »

What problem do you have with it?

??

That it's recorded as a hate incident.
In the UK, that can be disclosed against a search request for that person in certain circumstances never mind skewing the data on actual hate incidents.

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

In their defence, I could accuse you of any current crime (rape, murder, false imprisonment) in the morning. Even if it is completely unfounded and no arrests or charge are ever brought, there's SFA you can do about it. Doesn't mean there's a permanent stain on you / your record. I don't agree with Alastair's views on the hate speech thingy, but there's no merit in the argument that those who misabuse any law run the risk of permanently tarnishing another's good name.

Or, to put it another way, if you were to worry about that sort of crap then you'd never get a any laws passed.

But there is in that jurisdiction we are talking about.
It goes down as a reported hate incident against that persons name.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Wibbs wrote: »

Take this example. If you were wrongfully accused of a hate crime, pardon me "hate incident" and that accusation is on record how might a potential employer view it? How would you go about proving a negative with a crime considered so beyond the Pale? If two people decided out of collusion and badness to accuse you of it, you'd be in even more trouble. The no smoke without fire angle would be in play.

That's exactly the problem. Those who appear in court to defend themselves against having committed a hate crime will inevitably be viewed unfavourably in the court of public opinion, even if they are found innocent. In today's corporate world, where everyone is supposed to be in favour of diversity and inclusion, few potential employers will hire someone accused of hate speech. The person may lose job prospects, friends, his or her social circle, you name it, even if charges have been dismissed.

alastair

Sir Oxman wrote: »

??

That it's recorded as a hate incident.
In the UK, that can be disclosed against a search request for that person in certain circumstances never mind skewing the data on actual hate incidents.

How is it skewing the data? How do you determine ‘actual’ hate incidents if not by reporting suspected ones? What’s the issue with it being recorded as a hate incident? The circumstances for accessing police records in the UK are similar to those here - they’re extremely constrained by very limited and specific scenarios. Essentially you’d have to be under investigation as part of a different criminal case.

alastair

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

That's exactly the problem. Those who appear in court to defend themselves against having committed a hate crime will inevitably be viewed unfavourably in the court of public opinion, even if they are found innocent. In today's corporate world, where everyone is supposed to be in favour of diversity and inclusion, few potential employers will hire someone accused of hate speech. The person may lose job prospects, friends, his or her social circle, you name it, even if charges have been dismissed.

That’s an argument for all trials, of all kinds, to be held in camera - it’s nothing specific to hate crime legislation.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Take this example. If you were wrongfully accused of a hate crime, pardon me "hate incident" and that accusation is on record how might a potential employer view it? How would you go about proving a negative with a crime considered so beyond the Pale? If two people decided out of collusion and badness to accuse you of it, you'd be in even more trouble. The no smoke without fire angle would be in play.

There’s no means of an employer knowing anything about a hate incident, unless you volunteered that information to them. If there’s sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, then it’s no longer an incident - it’s an alleged crime - and a prosecutor, who’s professional role is to determine if there’s enough smoke to suspect there’s a fire, has already done that job.

Sir Oxman

alastair wrote: »

How is it skewing the data? How do you determine ‘actual’ hate incidents if not by reporting suspected ones? What’s the issue with it being recorded as a hate incident? The circumstances for accessing police records in the UK are similar to those here - they’re extremely constrained by very limited and specific scenarios. Essentially you’d have to be under investigation as part of a different criminal case.

What's the issue? Because it isn't a hate incident. Why should it be recorded as such. and why should it appear on someone's record if checked.


https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record


It's absurd and dangerous.

alastair

Sir Oxman wrote: »

What's the issue? Because it isn't a hate incident. Why should it be recorded as such. and why should it appear on someone's record if checked.


https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record


It's absurd and dangerous.

It’s a hate incident under the criteria the UK police recording policy. It doesn’t appear on a criminal record, as it’s neither a crime, nor a conviction. It’s on a police record, which isn’t accessible except under very limited circumstances.

blanch152

alastair wrote: »

I’ve no issue with Conor Hanly - he’s not making false claims - unlike yourself. It’s your nonsense is what I was calling out. You continue to engage in misrepresentation btw - you’ve no idea if a female majority jury has ever convicted a rapist in this country - none at all - and yet you make that claim. And again - if you don’t want answers - don’t waste everyone’s time by asking questions.

Are you suggesting that Irish female juries are superior in nature to female juries of other nationalities and jurisdictions?

The evidence is that female juries do not convict, if you are arguing that Ireland is somehow different, are you either expressing that based on hard evidence, or based on some sort of feeling that Irish juries are better?

alastair

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Irish female juries are superior in nature to female juries of other nationalities and jurisdictions?

The evidence is that female juries do not convict, if you are arguing that Ireland is somehow different, are you either expressing that based on hard evidence, or based on some sort of feeling that Irish juries are better?

I made no comment on female juries, here or anywhere else. I pointed out that there’s nothing to support the claim that female majority juries had never convicted a rapist in this country, and that it’s patently false to claim that male-dominated juries in Ireland convict in the majority of cases. They don’t. Maybe if you focussed on what I actually posted? 🤷🏻*♂️

Marcos

Sir Oxman wrote: »

And you see no problem with that?

Of course the likes of him doesn't. He's happy that it's recorded as a hate incident which of course will go into that years statistics which will be inflated as a result*. Which means that according to these statistics number of hate incidents have increased with all the attendant calls for more resources to be allocated to fight this heinous rise, possibly calls for more stringent laws etc etc. You see where this is going? Now if someone was working in one of these bodies that saw itself as benefiting from such a scenario, ask yourself how they would argue in a thread such as this, or in any other public discussion.


*Of course that also calls into question the validity of such statistics but hey, we're not worrying about little things like that are we?

blanch152

alastair wrote: »

I made no comment on female juries, here or anywhere else. I pointed out that there’s nothing to support the claim that female majority juries had never convicted a rapist in this country, and that it’s patently false to claim that male-dominated juries in Ireland convict in the majority of cases. They don’t. Maybe if you focussed on what I actually posted? 🤷🏻*♂️

The point being made is that the research finds that male juries convict at a higher rate than mixed juries which convict at a higher rate than female juries.

Nowhere is it suggested that a female-dominated jury has never convicted a rapist or that male-dominated juries convict in the majority of cases.

alastair

Marcos wrote: »

Of course the likes of him doesn't. He's happy that it's recorded as a hate incident which of course will go into that years statistics which will be inflated as a result*. Which means that according to these statistics number of hate incidents have increased with all the attendant calls for more resources to be allocated to fight this heinous rise, possibly calls for more stringent laws etc etc. You see where this is going? Now if someone was working in one of these bodies that saw itself as benefiting from such a scenario, ask yourself how they would argue in a thread such as this, or in any other public discussion.


*Of course that also calls into question the validity of such statistics but hey, we're not worrying about little things like that are we?

I’ve seen no hate incident stats. I’ve only seen hate crimes stats.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748598/hate-crime-1718-hosb2018.pdf

alastair

blanch152 wrote: »

The point being made is that the research finds that male juries convict at a higher rate than mixed juries which convict at a higher rate than female juries.

Other research finds that majority female juries are more likely to convict rapists. But again - I wasn’t commenting on that.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nowhere is it suggested that a female-dominated jury has never convicted a rapist or that male-dominated juries convict in the majority of cases.

I’m well aware the study says neither thing. The poster did though.