Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Have You Ever Been Involved In A 'hate Incident' ?
You possibly could have been (according to the police) depending on what opinions you may have expressed on this site and elsewhere.
https:/
Thoughts?
https:/
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// if he hasn't committed a crime, then no records should be kept. Complete bullocks.//
erm we have had this before - 60% of entries do not concern crime - f'r instance Nigh ( hi nigh bless!) will have a marker for her car because she holds a fun licence
and the fuzz want to know if they stop for eating a lolly whilst driving - whether she may wind down her window and say - what seems to be the problem? bamma lamma lamma lamma !
erm we have had this before - 60% of entries do not concern crime - f'r instance Nigh ( hi nigh bless!) will have a marker for her car because she holds a fun licence
and the fuzz want to know if they stop for eating a lolly whilst driving - whether she may wind down her window and say - what seems to be the problem? bamma lamma lamma lamma !
the judgement - cued by Barmaid - Hi Barmaid
is here
https:/
for anyone that want to ( read it)
is here
https:/
for anyone that want to ( read it)
// I have no opinion on the Learned Judge's ruling as I have not seen all the evidence.//
erm - you could have an opinion on the judges ruling as it is all there for perusal
perhaps not on the case - as you havent seen the evidence
but - - even that gets filtered by rules of evidence
so presumably you spend your days driving your dear wife up the khazi at a supermarket when you pick a tinna beans and comment - well it says 38 pence but it may not be .....
erm - you could have an opinion on the judges ruling as it is all there for perusal
perhaps not on the case - as you havent seen the evidence
but - - even that gets filtered by rules of evidence
so presumably you spend your days driving your dear wife up the khazi at a supermarket when you pick a tinna beans and comment - well it says 38 pence but it may not be .....
I have now read the #bulk of MR JUSTICE JULIAN KNOWLES 'judgement' PP { and thanks for posting Link! } and read the 17 out of 31 tweets. --
"I turn to the Claimant’s tweets which give rise to this case. There were 31 tweets in total. They were posted between November 2018 and January 2019. I will not recite them all, but will set out a selection which I think fairly expresses their overall tone and impact."
An enlightening experience requiring effort IMHO, on the lines of pilpul and legal doubletalk, but hey, I am not educated in Law and maybe that is the reason I found it so tortuous and off-putting .
It had some interesting and @eye opening# details along with the Legal squirming, eg
"[38] Finally, PC Gul offered his final words of advice, words that I will never forget as I was so stunned by them. He said, ‘You have to understand, sometimes in the womb, a female brain gets confused and pushes out the wrong body parts, and that is what transgender is. I replied, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Wrong body parts ? You have to know that is absolute ***. Is this really the official police line ?’ PC Gul said, ‘Yes, I have been on a course.’ I ended the call shortly after this. The call lasted 34 minutes.”
195. Hate incidents and non-crime hate incidents are the subject of detailed definitions by reference to the five protected strands, namely disability; race; religion; sexual orientation; and transgender. I have already set out the definitions earlier in this judgment.
237. I therefore reject the Claimant’s broad-based challenge to the legality of HCOG under Article 10. In summary, I conclude that (a) the mere recording of a non-crime hate incident based on an individual’s speech is not an interference with his or her rights under Article 10(1); (b) but if it is, it is prescribed by law and done for two of the legitimate aims in Article 10(2); and (c) that HCOG does not give rise to an unacceptable risk of a violation of Article 10(1) on the grounds of disproportionality. >Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG)
287. What the Claimant wrote was lawful. The Claimant was just one person writing things which only one other person found offensive out of however many read them. Mrs B chose to read the Claimant’s tweets. The tweets were not directed at her.
288. In his treatise On Liberty (1859) John Stuart Mill wrote:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
289. For the reasons I have set out, whilst Mrs B made a complaint that was recorded under HCOG, the police’s treatment of the Claimant thereafter disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression, which is an essential component of democracy for all of the reasons I explained at the beginning of this judgment. END OF!!!
What may be of interest, Mrs B - the protagonist - "69. Mrs B made her complaint via an online system called ‘True Vision’."
http://
worth a look at, and "“12. On Twitter, my account name (or handle) is @HarrytheOwl."
I am ALL for 'free speech', and Peter Pedant, I do NOW "have an opinion on the judges ruling" : BASED on his summary I would likely have agreed the police response to his allegedly transphobic tweets was unlawful.
Sorry!! for the delay PP as I try not to jump to conclusions ( = opinions???) as some do ... "so presumably you spend your days driving your dear wife up the khazi at a supermarket when you pick a tinna beans and comment - well it says 38 pence but it may not be ....." { ;~~~ 0 )
"I turn to the Claimant’s tweets which give rise to this case. There were 31 tweets in total. They were posted between November 2018 and January 2019. I will not recite them all, but will set out a selection which I think fairly expresses their overall tone and impact."
An enlightening experience requiring effort IMHO, on the lines of pilpul and legal doubletalk, but hey, I am not educated in Law and maybe that is the reason I found it so tortuous and off-putting .
It had some interesting and @eye opening# details along with the Legal squirming, eg
"[38] Finally, PC Gul offered his final words of advice, words that I will never forget as I was so stunned by them. He said, ‘You have to understand, sometimes in the womb, a female brain gets confused and pushes out the wrong body parts, and that is what transgender is. I replied, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Wrong body parts ? You have to know that is absolute ***. Is this really the official police line ?’ PC Gul said, ‘Yes, I have been on a course.’ I ended the call shortly after this. The call lasted 34 minutes.”
195. Hate incidents and non-crime hate incidents are the subject of detailed definitions by reference to the five protected strands, namely disability; race; religion; sexual orientation; and transgender. I have already set out the definitions earlier in this judgment.
237. I therefore reject the Claimant’s broad-based challenge to the legality of HCOG under Article 10. In summary, I conclude that (a) the mere recording of a non-crime hate incident based on an individual’s speech is not an interference with his or her rights under Article 10(1); (b) but if it is, it is prescribed by law and done for two of the legitimate aims in Article 10(2); and (c) that HCOG does not give rise to an unacceptable risk of a violation of Article 10(1) on the grounds of disproportionality. >Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG)
287. What the Claimant wrote was lawful. The Claimant was just one person writing things which only one other person found offensive out of however many read them. Mrs B chose to read the Claimant’s tweets. The tweets were not directed at her.
288. In his treatise On Liberty (1859) John Stuart Mill wrote:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
289. For the reasons I have set out, whilst Mrs B made a complaint that was recorded under HCOG, the police’s treatment of the Claimant thereafter disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression, which is an essential component of democracy for all of the reasons I explained at the beginning of this judgment. END OF!!!
What may be of interest, Mrs B - the protagonist - "69. Mrs B made her complaint via an online system called ‘True Vision’."
http://
worth a look at, and "“12. On Twitter, my account name (or handle) is @HarrytheOwl."
I am ALL for 'free speech', and Peter Pedant, I do NOW "have an opinion on the judges ruling" : BASED on his summary I would likely have agreed the police response to his allegedly transphobic tweets was unlawful.
Sorry!! for the delay PP as I try not to jump to conclusions ( = opinions???) as some do ... "so presumably you spend your days driving your dear wife up the khazi at a supermarket when you pick a tinna beans and comment - well it says 38 pence but it may not be ....." { ;~~~ 0 )
tinna beans?
I was inferring that you pick up a tinna beans and pass an opinion that you dont know how much it costs as you dont have all the information even tho it is lab elled 39 p
their lordhips lard the judgement with quotes from JS Mill and 1984 and then basically find the College of Policiing guidelines are lawful
and Miller being listed was not -
I was hoping that they would have a go at all the data on the PNC which does not relate to crime but they did not.
Medically the whole field is a mess. Gender reassignment - I thought around 50% later regretted it.
I was inferring that you pick up a tinna beans and pass an opinion that you dont know how much it costs as you dont have all the information even tho it is lab elled 39 p
their lordhips lard the judgement with quotes from JS Mill and 1984 and then basically find the College of Policiing guidelines are lawful
and Miller being listed was not -
I was hoping that they would have a go at all the data on the PNC which does not relate to crime but they did not.
Medically the whole field is a mess. Gender reassignment - I thought around 50% later regretted it.
"even tho it is lab elled 39 p"
Hold on, up a penny in one day!
I'm not having that!!! = joke
No wonder they cite so much 'case Law' and 'prior rulings' and 'experts', to obfuscate the Legal Gymnastics these complicit, back-coverers perform.
I won't stand ( in court) for it ( = hew/US speek) M'lard !!!!
The gender 'weapon' [ blush ] could be as/more/? divisive as the race card, jew slaughter, white prevail-age, climate boom, virus-gate,..........
Heard a good one on R4 tonight, some expert warning of dangers of an 'infodemic'.... might have been a woke staffer denier, eyes open, No fear.
Hold on, up a penny in one day!
I'm not having that!!! = joke
No wonder they cite so much 'case Law' and 'prior rulings' and 'experts', to obfuscate the Legal Gymnastics these complicit, back-coverers perform.
I won't stand ( in court) for it ( = hew/US speek) M'lard !!!!
The gender 'weapon' [ blush ] could be as/more/? divisive as the race card, jew slaughter, white prevail-age, climate boom, virus-gate,..........
Heard a good one on R4 tonight, some expert warning of dangers of an 'infodemic'.... might have been a woke staffer denier, eyes open, No fear.
Found this article mentioning comments made by Sir The Hon. MR JUSTICE JULIAN KNOWLES on DAY 1 of this case ( around 20th Nov 2019) which might explain his extreme back-peddling (and questionable verbal gymnastics) whilst protecting his Legal minion foot soldiers - The College of Policing, who issued their Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG)
I understand the police do not have an easy job at times, the entire Trans- issue is new, complex and contains a yet unknown number of pitfalls, but why on earth are JUDGES like this Sir Hon. Plonker not reprimanded [ de-Barred ? ] for spouted their Legal mouths on the First Day of a case they will eventually rule on ?
https:/
I understand the police do not have an easy job at times, the entire Trans- issue is new, complex and contains a yet unknown number of pitfalls, but why on earth are JUDGES like this Sir Hon. Plonker not reprimanded [ de-Barred ? ] for spouted their Legal mouths on the First Day of a case they will eventually rule on ?
https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank74 mins ago
ChatterBank93 mins ago
Crosswords93 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles95 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.