News2 mins ago
Free Speech Now Seriously Under Attack...
....top legal minds on cancel culture fear. // The report, which has been drawn up by top QC Frances Hoare with a forward by former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, has detailed an assault on freedom of speech through recent hate crime legislation and workplace practices. It follows concerns that so-called “cancel culture” by woke institutions and activists is leading to people being forced out of their jobs, blocked from speaking, facing legal action or banned from social media platforms.....The 50 page report has proposed six eforms designed to give UK citizens the same protection as the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
These include a recommendation that the police should lose the power to investigate so-called “non-crime hate incidents” and the Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be scrapped.//
Not before time. And just as TTT posts his Bob the Builder thread too.
https:/
These include a recommendation that the police should lose the power to investigate so-called “non-crime hate incidents” and the Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be scrapped.//
Not before time. And just as TTT posts his Bob the Builder thread too.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. 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.
Jno. I have offered an opinion. I said this is ‘not before time’.
Your delight is misplaced. The success of this will mean that the cancellers can still attempt to cancel all they like - but they won’t succeed because other people’s rights to voice their opinions will be just as valid. No one cancelling anyone. As I said, try again.
Your delight is misplaced. The success of this will mean that the cancellers can still attempt to cancel all they like - but they won’t succeed because other people’s rights to voice their opinions will be just as valid. No one cancelling anyone. As I said, try again.
You know, most proper newspapers would write "foreword" instead of "forward" and would definitely spot they'd written "eforms" instead of "reforms". Both errors in the short snippet in the OP.
But this is not a news article from a proper newspaper, it's a puff piece for a pointless report "commissioned by Laurence Fox", which has virtually no chance of getting anywhere ever, let alone "Not before time".
But this is not a news article from a proper newspaper, it's a puff piece for a pointless report "commissioned by Laurence Fox", which has virtually no chance of getting anywhere ever, let alone "Not before time".
Ellipsis, it’s reported elsewhere but some outlets are behind paywalls so pointless posting links to them.
I don’t care who instigated this or even that there are a few grammatical errors in the report - and actually picking on that when such an important issue is in question simply reflects the nonsensical society that petty pedantry is turning us into.
It’s necessary that this unacceptable culture is being criticised and it’s not before time. I sincerely hope the powers that be listen to this. They need to before this country ends up climbing up its own bottom completely.
I don’t care who instigated this or even that there are a few grammatical errors in the report - and actually picking on that when such an important issue is in question simply reflects the nonsensical society that petty pedantry is turning us into.
It’s necessary that this unacceptable culture is being criticised and it’s not before time. I sincerely hope the powers that be listen to this. They need to before this country ends up climbing up its own bottom completely.
> It’s necessary that this unacceptable culture is being criticised
Yep, that's fine. Although repeating the same arguments over and over again is tiresome, it seems it's necessary.
> I sincerely hope the powers that be listen to this.
You think they didn't think of it as they were writing the hate crime legislation in the first place?
Yep, that's fine. Although repeating the same arguments over and over again is tiresome, it seems it's necessary.
> I sincerely hope the powers that be listen to this.
You think they didn't think of it as they were writing the hate crime legislation in the first place?
The issue with Free Speech is that it means everyone's free speech, not just that which you agree with.
In the UK we had always managed to cope with this in the past (Oswald's Moseley's ranting in the Thirties springs to mind, not to mention some of the more extreme characters at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park). More recently however many people (including several Abers) got very frothy over Abu Hamza's preaching and that's what started the rot. People wanted him silenced, the rest is History.
In the UK we had always managed to cope with this in the past (Oswald's Moseley's ranting in the Thirties springs to mind, not to mention some of the more extreme characters at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park). More recently however many people (including several Abers) got very frothy over Abu Hamza's preaching and that's what started the rot. People wanted him silenced, the rest is History.
Abu Hamza found guilty of 11 terrorism charges
https:/
https:/
At 14:07 I posted an opinion piece, and a question, and nobody has responded. I think that's why I am often tempted to target perceived hypocrisy or bigotry rather than try to post a measured response. I really should stay away from political stuff; it's no good trying to discuss issues with people whose minds are made up once and for all. I'm sure Naomi would understand the feeling. I don't enjoy batting beliefs back and forth. It really is pointless, apart from giving pleasure to those participants who love a good 'argument'.
Can’t help but think this and TTTs post are both from the same mould.
‘They are stopping us from saying what we think’.
Except they are not. You can say whatever you want any time to any one.
But if it is a public place, and you will cause offence, then you will be forbidden.
The Young Marxists seldom get at platform at the Conservative Party Conference, and the Pro Life Brigade won’t get a hearing at the Labour Party Conference. It is not censorship, it is common-sense.
Putting on events just to rile students or the general public is pathetic and justly banning that is perfectly acceptable.
‘They are stopping us from saying what we think’.
Except they are not. You can say whatever you want any time to any one.
But if it is a public place, and you will cause offence, then you will be forbidden.
The Young Marxists seldom get at platform at the Conservative Party Conference, and the Pro Life Brigade won’t get a hearing at the Labour Party Conference. It is not censorship, it is common-sense.
Putting on events just to rile students or the general public is pathetic and justly banning that is perfectly acceptable.
//…there is something ineffably wonderful about a thread announcing "We must silence the cancellers!"//
I don’t think there’s a call to silence the cancellers. It’s more a call to remove the option for them to “cancel” those whose views do not concur with their own.
//Which hate crimes do you think should be decriminalised and which should not?//
None. And that’s not what this is about. All crimes can be aggravated by “hatred” of those with protected characteristics. Sentencers will enhance the “standard” sentence if the court finds those offences are so aggravated. Some crimes have a specifically framed “Racially Aggravated” version (mainly those involving public order or assault) with enhanced maximum and guideline sentences.
Mentioned in the OP are “Non-crime hate incidents”. These are incidents where no crime has been committed. The College of Policing’s guidance on such matters is this:
“If the victim or any other person perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility, it should be recorded and flagged as a non-crime hate incident.”
This is based on the preposterous recommendation #12 (of 70) from the McPherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence:
12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
It is perfectly proper that the police should record all incidents in which they are involved (though recommendation 12 is ludicrous in that it does not require the alleged victim to make a complaint or even be present). But what is not proper is that these incidents, when they have been determined as “non-crimes” are recorded against an individual in the same way as if he had been convicted of a criminal offence. These “incidents” are thus liable for disclosure under an enhanced DBS check. As if that was not enough, they are not subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and so will never become “spent” in the same way as most minor convictions do, so they may be disclosed for life.
There have been 120,000 of these incidents recorded in the past five years. That’s 120,000 people who have a de facto criminal record without being convicted of anything. Some of these incidents amount no more to one person disagreeing with an opinion held by another. One person with such a record is a gentleman who wrote a letter to a person who was running a campaign against a storyline in a soap opera, to do with abortion. There was nothing threatening or offensive in his letter, just an expression of disagreement. Free speech is definitely under threat if such opinions cannot be expressed without PC Plod knocking at the door.
I don’t think there’s a call to silence the cancellers. It’s more a call to remove the option for them to “cancel” those whose views do not concur with their own.
//Which hate crimes do you think should be decriminalised and which should not?//
None. And that’s not what this is about. All crimes can be aggravated by “hatred” of those with protected characteristics. Sentencers will enhance the “standard” sentence if the court finds those offences are so aggravated. Some crimes have a specifically framed “Racially Aggravated” version (mainly those involving public order or assault) with enhanced maximum and guideline sentences.
Mentioned in the OP are “Non-crime hate incidents”. These are incidents where no crime has been committed. The College of Policing’s guidance on such matters is this:
“If the victim or any other person perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility, it should be recorded and flagged as a non-crime hate incident.”
This is based on the preposterous recommendation #12 (of 70) from the McPherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence:
12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
It is perfectly proper that the police should record all incidents in which they are involved (though recommendation 12 is ludicrous in that it does not require the alleged victim to make a complaint or even be present). But what is not proper is that these incidents, when they have been determined as “non-crimes” are recorded against an individual in the same way as if he had been convicted of a criminal offence. These “incidents” are thus liable for disclosure under an enhanced DBS check. As if that was not enough, they are not subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and so will never become “spent” in the same way as most minor convictions do, so they may be disclosed for life.
There have been 120,000 of these incidents recorded in the past five years. That’s 120,000 people who have a de facto criminal record without being convicted of anything. Some of these incidents amount no more to one person disagreeing with an opinion held by another. One person with such a record is a gentleman who wrote a letter to a person who was running a campaign against a storyline in a soap opera, to do with abortion. There was nothing threatening or offensive in his letter, just an expression of disagreement. Free speech is definitely under threat if such opinions cannot be expressed without PC Plod knocking at the door.
> None. And that’s not what this is about
When the OP says "The report, which has been drawn up by top QC Frances Hoare with a forward by former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, has detailed an assault on freedom of speech through recent hate crime legislation ... and the Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be scrapped", it's talking about hate crimes, not non-hate crimes ...
> Mentioned in the OP are “Non-crime hate incidents”
Yep, it is mentioned. Not as prominently as in your response.
When the OP says "The report, which has been drawn up by top QC Frances Hoare with a forward by former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, has detailed an assault on freedom of speech through recent hate crime legislation ... and the Scottish Hate Crime Bill should be scrapped", it's talking about hate crimes, not non-hate crimes ...
> Mentioned in the OP are “Non-crime hate incidents”
Yep, it is mentioned. Not as prominently as in your response.
I gave it such prominence because I believe "non-crime hate incidents" are a major assault on free speech (the OP's topic). All it needs is for one person to make a report of an incident (which may be something simply spoken or in writing with which the complainant takes umbrage) and the accused ends up with what is effectively a criminal record. The police do not have to prove any wrongdoing; there does not even need for any wrongdoing to have taken place. If one person gets the hump over something that is said or written and they report it to the police as a "hate" incident, that's all it takes. And that, quite frankly, is scandalous.
It's important to stress that, while non-crime hate incidents *can* appear on an enhanced DBS, this is far from automatic:
"If an enhanced DBS check is carried out, which is limited to a list of high-risk positions like teachers and carers, it will not show up unless it is relevant to the job and is approved by a chief officer, who must consider an individual’s human rights of privacy and freedom of speech.
Under separate Home Office rules, chief officers must also consider allowing someone the opportunity to reply before information is disclosed, and it should not be disclosed if it is trivial, simply demonstrates poor behaviour or relates merely to an individual’s lifestyle."
Maybe even that's not enough to placate NJ's concerns. But if someone has a track record of being quick to demonstrate prejudice, or just generally being rude to their friends and colleagues and anybody who is different, it is probably relevant to an application to jobs where they are in a position of authority or power over others.
https:/
"If an enhanced DBS check is carried out, which is limited to a list of high-risk positions like teachers and carers, it will not show up unless it is relevant to the job and is approved by a chief officer, who must consider an individual’s human rights of privacy and freedom of speech.
Under separate Home Office rules, chief officers must also consider allowing someone the opportunity to reply before information is disclosed, and it should not be disclosed if it is trivial, simply demonstrates poor behaviour or relates merely to an individual’s lifestyle."
Maybe even that's not enough to placate NJ's concerns. But if someone has a track record of being quick to demonstrate prejudice, or just generally being rude to their friends and colleagues and anybody who is different, it is probably relevant to an application to jobs where they are in a position of authority or power over others.
https:/
//Maybe even that's not enough to placate NJ's concerns.//
No it isn't. Not even close.
I have a habit of being rude to my friends, They have a habit of being rude to me. It's consensual banter, part of a life not frequented by people who appear to have had a broom handle stuck up their rearmost orifice. "Any other person" witnessing our exchanges might report me to the police as they might view our interchanges as a "hate incident". I don't want that recorded against my name whether it disclosable a the whim of a senior police officer or not. If someone has a "track record" of rudeness to others, provided no criminal offences have been committed, that is not a matter for the police and is not their business to record it, especially if they do so based on a report from an uninvolved party. It is not the function of the police to provide character references to employers and prospective employers should have to find another way of discovering their candidates' proclivities.
No it isn't. Not even close.
I have a habit of being rude to my friends, They have a habit of being rude to me. It's consensual banter, part of a life not frequented by people who appear to have had a broom handle stuck up their rearmost orifice. "Any other person" witnessing our exchanges might report me to the police as they might view our interchanges as a "hate incident". I don't want that recorded against my name whether it disclosable a the whim of a senior police officer or not. If someone has a "track record" of rudeness to others, provided no criminal offences have been committed, that is not a matter for the police and is not their business to record it, especially if they do so based on a report from an uninvolved party. It is not the function of the police to provide character references to employers and prospective employers should have to find another way of discovering their candidates' proclivities.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News5 mins ago
Astonish In Topless Dress. (4)
Crosswords5 mins ago
Jokes6 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.