News26 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.
"//Maybe even that's not enough to placate NJ's concerns.//
No it isn't. Not even close."
I didn't think it would be. But there we are. The problem that was addressed by the recommendation was that so much racial tensions were being missed because they didn't meet stringent thresholds. Maybe now too much is being picked up. But there's no obvious way how you can find the middle ground without requiring police to investigate. Perhaps higher thresholds for what makes it into an EDBS, ie at a minimum require several incidents that are reported by separate witnesses.
No it isn't. Not even close."
I didn't think it would be. But there we are. The problem that was addressed by the recommendation was that so much racial tensions were being missed because they didn't meet stringent thresholds. Maybe now too much is being picked up. But there's no obvious way how you can find the middle ground without requiring police to investigate. Perhaps higher thresholds for what makes it into an EDBS, ie at a minimum require several incidents that are reported by separate witnesses.
//But there's no obvious way how you can find the middle ground without requiring police to investigate.//
I've no objection to the police investigating allegations of criminal behaviour. Jim. It's what they are supposed to do and in many respects they don't do enough of it. What I object to is that when they have concluded that no crime has been committed, the "incident" is still recorded against an individual in much the same way as if it had (though I accept your qualification about disclosure not being automatic). I find it particularly concerning when the alleged victim not have to make a complaint (which is somewhat unique apart from allegations of murder or manslaughter). But worse than that, he does not even have to be present or have first hand knowledge of the incident. Such is the lunacy that has grown from recommendation 12 of the McPherson report.
I've no objection to the police investigating allegations of criminal behaviour. Jim. It's what they are supposed to do and in many respects they don't do enough of it. What I object to is that when they have concluded that no crime has been committed, the "incident" is still recorded against an individual in much the same way as if it had (though I accept your qualification about disclosure not being automatic). I find it particularly concerning when the alleged victim not have to make a complaint (which is somewhat unique apart from allegations of murder or manslaughter). But worse than that, he does not even have to be present or have first hand knowledge of the incident. Such is the lunacy that has grown from recommendation 12 of the McPherson report.
The issue not about hate/non-hate crimes. The police have a duty to investigate all allegations of criminal behaviour, be it "hate" or "non-hate". The recommendation mentioned is that the police should lose the power to investigate so-called “non-crime hate incidents”. Of course often some investigation is necessary to determine whether an incident involves criminality or not. But once that investigation is complete, if no criminality has been established that should be that. The police should keep a record of their investigation but nothing should be recorded against anybody's name that can be disclosed if they need a DBS check. That should be the case whether the incident is considered one of "hate" or not.
//roy, if I were to call you a thick prat, would you take umbrage, or would you defend my right to free speech?//
I would take umbrage AND defend your right to free speech (the two are not mutually exclusive). I would probably also provide a suitable reply. One thing I would not want to see is the police investigating such an "incident."
I would take umbrage AND defend your right to free speech (the two are not mutually exclusive). I would probably also provide a suitable reply. One thing I would not want to see is the police investigating such an "incident."
roy, don't you remember any such monosyllabic comments? Most of your posts are a bit monosyllabic, so perhaps you can't bring one to mind. Sorry, I'm not very good at searching for evidence of other people's comments about me. I seem to remember 'prat' as one such, but maybe I'm wrong, it could have been another word.
roy, I wouldn't dream of trawling through old posts, searching your name, just to score a point. If you give me your word of honour that you have never dismissed me with a disrespectful monosyllable, then I accept that and tender my apologies. (By the way, I never did offer to perform disgusting acts, as you thought you had found evidence for a while back; you really did mistake me for some previous ABer. But what the hell, we all make mistakes.)
Apologies to Gromit who is clearly so intelligent that the Daily Express is intolerable to him. The rest of us can only bathe in reflected glory. That said, he’s not THAT intelligent if he thinks ‘free speak is alive and well’. It isn’t. Perhaps if he would care to research J K Rowling’s experiences for speaking the truth, which include death threats and hundreds of threats of physical violence from the trans brigade, he just might learn something.
Her latest response to this is: //now hundreds of trans activists have threatened to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb me I’ve realised that this movement poses no risk to women whatsoever.”//
https:/
Nice to see that she hasn’t lost her sense of humour.
Her latest response to this is: //now hundreds of trans activists have threatened to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb me I’ve realised that this movement poses no risk to women whatsoever.”//
https:/
Nice to see that she hasn’t lost her sense of humour.
// The police have a duty to investigate all allegations of criminal behaviour,// the great NJ lost in the clouds....
oops are you sure about that?
every ABer will whine: like hell because their experience is the exact oppostie - to wit you complaint to the police and they do diddly squat
20 000 lacking in Manchester - but the chief constable did go....
oops are you sure about that?
every ABer will whine: like hell because their experience is the exact oppostie - to wit you complaint to the police and they do diddly squat
20 000 lacking in Manchester - but the chief constable did go....
more crsazy stuff from Naomi
can you tell me if J K Rowling is for free speech - that is the transgender can say what they like so what
or
imprison them with nags gags ( the iron tongues they used to put in - - - mouths)
I have to say I am confused by what Naomi is saying today
I may have to wait until tomorrow
JK is saying so what innit
no - - cancel the cancellers
someone with the brilliance of Naomi see above should be able to disabuse me
can you tell me if J K Rowling is for free speech - that is the transgender can say what they like so what
or
imprison them with nags gags ( the iron tongues they used to put in - - - mouths)
I have to say I am confused by what Naomi is saying today
I may have to wait until tomorrow
JK is saying so what innit
no - - cancel the cancellers
someone with the brilliance of Naomi see above should be able to disabuse me
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles118 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles176 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.