Davkaus Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: The police are supposedly investigating it ... it’s incredibly bad taste but a police investigation is just bonkers ... we should build a bonfire and put those responsible on it instead I'm not surprised. They seem to spend more time investigating people's hurt feelings than actual crimes these days. This country's laws about 'offence' are truly backwards. I find the police investigation in to this more offensive than the bonfire. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, limpid said: Indeed. Or we accept that society has idiots in it and stop platforming them. Then we move on. Like the catholics did. It seems you see moving on as contingent on not platforming them, where I see it as contingent on challenging them. Presumably "not platforming" involves some fairly widespread removal of their access to platforms, which in turn implies widespread surveillance and control. I mean as opposed to letting them post this stuff wherever they can, and just not recirculating it, hoping not too many see it or are influenced (should we say "radicalised"?) by it. From some of your previous comment in other threads, I would have taken you to hold the contrary view in respect of censorship and surveillance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Davkaus Posted November 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 5, 2018 I'm vaguely amused by May responding more quickly and decisively to this than she did to the actual disaster. 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I'm not surprised. They seem to spend more time investigating people's hurt feelings than actual crimes these days. Is this a rhetorical device, or do you actually believe it? 5 minutes ago, Davkaus said: This country's laws about 'offence' are truly backwards. I find the police investigation in to this more offensive than the bonfire. We should encourage wilful offence, not discourage it? You find it offensive that the police should respond to a report of a potential crime by investigating, as opposed to saying "Nah, don't sound too serious to me, Dave. Fancy another hand?" Edited November 5, 2018 by peterms sp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 (edited) In a time in which senior police officers defend not attending burglaries due to cuts, I find it baffling how much time they seem to have to investigate the crime of causing offence. Do I want to encourage wilful offence? No. I just think it should be discouraged by mockery, criticism, or shunning. Not by legal action. Being a Representative for Wellingborough shouldn't be a crime. Nor should being offensive. I find Birmingham City offensive, but a criminal investigation is potentially over the top. What I find offensive, you may not. One person's hateful offensive comment is another person's favourite joke on sickipedia. I'd draw the line at police investigating any speech other than inciting or encouraging violence and other crimes, personally. Edited November 5, 2018 by Davkaus 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted November 5, 2018 Administrator Share Posted November 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, peterms said: It seems you see moving on as contingent on not platforming them, where I see it as contingent on challenging them. Presumably "not platforming" involves some fairly widespread removal of their access to platforms, which in turn implies widespread surveillance and control. I mean as opposed to letting them post this stuff wherever they can, and just not recirculating it, hoping not too many see it or are influenced (should we say "radicalised"?) by it. By "platforming" I mean giving them an audience. If no-one shared, commented, got offended on behalf of others then this wouldn't be a thing. It would be a small number of idiots living in their own little silo. Giving them an audience will encourage them and others to do the same or even take it further. Don't feed the trolls. 12 minutes ago, peterms said: From some of your previous comment in other threads, I would have taken you to hold the contrary view in respect of censorship and surveillance. I don't have a simple opinion on either. However I think it aligns well. I'd rather the idiots wore badges. I just wish others wouldn't let them revel in having them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, Davkaus said: In a time in which senior police officers defend not attending burglaries due to cuts, That's the key point. They are given more to do with less resources, and it's not sustainable. They can't attack the cuts or they would be sacked, so they try to come up with a formula that squares the circle, knowing it to be unbelievable. Hate crime is important and needs tackling because it leads to violence and death, by justifying hate, eroding boundaries, normalising aggressive and fear-inducing behaviour. Not because it makes someone sniff into their hanky. Think of it like preventative medicine versus A&E. If you're asked which you want, the only sensible answer is both. If asked which you should do in the next hour, then you do the one which involves immediate harms and threats. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, limpid said: By "platforming" I mean giving them an audience. If no-one shared, commented, got offended on behalf of others then this wouldn't be a thing. It would be a small number of idiots living in their own little silo. Yes, but given that the platforms are there and widely used, the "if only" scenario doesnt work, so we have a choice between permitting within or without limits, or challenging, or denying a platform. 8 minutes ago, limpid said: I'd rather the idiots wore badges. I'd suggest they largely do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turvontour Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 What is the criminal offence? I mean theyre clearly bellends but i'd be interested to know what theyd get done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 38 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I'd draw the line at police investigating any speech other than inciting or encouraging violence and other crimes, personally. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 just seen it on the news that really is a special bunch of retards, there's no crime, the hate crime element of it because they call a woman in a hijab a ninja or even as ITV claimed because the people are made of brown paper isn't enough IMO to warrant an investigation, honestly though to me its doesn't seem like humour it does feel spiteful for some unknown reason but you'll never prove that, it would be an investigation that would go nowhere i just cant get my head around the time and effort put in to it, thats not something they thought was funny and cobbled together, thats hours worth of doing to build that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, turvontour said: What is the criminal offence? I mean theyre clearly bellends but i'd be interested to know what theyd get done for. I'm not clear that there is one. In hate crime, there first has to be a crime, and only secondly if the motivation is hate, then hate is a consideration that aggravates the (already existing) offence. "Haters gonna hate" is not sufficient. Nor is generally being a dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 I would quote the tweet of Darren Loki McGarvey on this, but it breaks the site guidelines on swear words. You can look it up yourselves, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 16 hours ago, peterms said: I would quote the tweet of Darren Loki McGarvey on this, but it breaks the site guidelines on swear words. You can look it up yourselves, though. He seems to have written many tweets, a lot of which are utter bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted November 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 5, 2018 Whilst we're all super angry at a bunch of thick pricks, it's now 70 weeks since this government said everyone would be rehoused within the month. Incidentally, how are they getting on with the tricky subject of what constitutes a combustible material? I know who I'd slap first. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 5, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 5, 2018 4 hours ago, Chindie said: Guys, it's Bonfire Night. You know what would be funny? Mocking the deaths of 72 people including kids. Pwopa lol mate. The video's easy enough to find. Here's hoping they get what's coming to them. In light of where the conversations gone, to be clear when I say get what's coming to them, I mean ostracisation, that kinda thing. Maybe they might get unlucky around their next bonfire and get a bit sindged themselves. Not criminal charges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 10 minutes ago, snowychap said: He seems to have written many tweets, a lot of which are utter bollocks. Let he who is without utter bollocks cast the first stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, peterms said: Let he who is without utter bollocks cast the first stone. I'm sure that's meant to be witty. Whatever its intent, it doesn't satisfactorily deflect away from yer man's 'if that's not a crime then change the **** law' nonsense or the even worse 'what if it was YOUR dead relatives' utter guff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm sure that's meant to be witty. Whatever its intent, it doesn't satisfactorily deflect away from yer man's 'if that's not a crime then change the **** law' nonsense or the even worse 'what if it was YOUR dead relatives' utter guff. So you don't like him, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 Just now, peterms said: So you don't like him, then? I don't know him from Adam. Could be a perfectly nice chap for all I know. I have an opinion on what he's written - see above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts