• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Behavior of UK Police officers.

Dave Rogers said:
It must be strange living in a fantasy world like that. But please do report to the police that people you don't know on an Internet forum are saying things about Christianity that you personally find demeaning. I'm sure that they'll take you very seriously the first time.
Click to expand...

I will. I'm not joking, either, because as you'll surely know, and approve of:

Announcing that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will henceforward treat online ‘hate crimes’ as seriously as those committed face to face, Saunders defends this new approach by claiming that there is a:

“common thread that links online purveyors of hate with those who commit physical hate crimes. That is, the desire to undermine and instil (sic) fear in those they target, both individually and collectively.“
Click to expand...

https://theoldcontinent.eu/cps/

I have my eye on you.
 
South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner explains why people should report activity that is not criminal to the police, if they believe an element of 'hate' exists.

(Embedding doesn't work for me so, yeah)

https://youtu.be/wZXGI7R1-gA
 
Worm said:
It's aimed at bigots. In really big type. It's not subtle. Or more specifically religious bigots. Christianity isn't mentioned, nor is any other religion.

I can conceivably read it as a warning to those who exhibit religious bigotry, of any kind. Whether they actually deliver on that message is a different question, but the message is clear.

I suspect that anyone who feels this is aimed at them should probably examine their own conscience.
Click to expand...

baron said:
It's obvious. I'm not wasting my time explaining something this blatant so you guys carry on playing your silly little games. But maybe you can explain why religious bigots must be religious themselves. And whilst you're at it, why bigotry should be a crime.
Click to expand...

Given where it was, I'm willing to accept that it was addressing specific sectarian issues, which are different flavours of Christianity and bigotry around it.

However, I don't think that many of my Christian colleagues would think it was aimed at them, nor would they have anything to worry about. For the rather simple reason that they're not bigots.
 
baron said:
A stolen phone doesn't require any subjective judgement. It may be a fraudulent report, or incorrect, but that's a different matter.



Well it reads to me, and many others, like it does, and clearly so. But let's say you're right. Let's say it's aimed at everybody. Your comment, and others, to the effect of 'Why would anybody think this is being aimed at them unless they're a bigot'? is quite something to say on a site that is renowned for its mockery of religion and Christianity in particular. If I went through your post history (I'm not going to) would I find any posts intolerant of any religion, mocking religion or the religious?

And in case this is unclear, it's hypocrisy unless you accept that most people on this site (and I won't include you personally because I don't know, only suspect) are the very bigots that are referred to in the text. I know I certainly am, and I know a great many other posters who are too.
Click to expand...

From the wording of the poster it certainly does not describe me nor any behaviour of myself, nor of any of my friends.

ETA: Seriously Baron I've just gone back and looked at the wording again in case it was my comprehension that was at fault - but no it is quite clear it is aimed at those spreading hatred, attacking people for the way they dress and so on. If you think it describes your behaviour than I would have to say that yes you are a hateful bigot - but I don't think it does, I think you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick and refuse to acknowledge you may have misunderstood the poster.
 
Last edited:
baron said:
South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner explains why people should report activity that is not criminal to the police, if they believe an element of 'hate' exists.
Click to expand...

Because, of course, ordinary people may not know sufficient criminal law to realise that a crime has been committed. But as long as activity is not criminal, it clearly isn't defined as a hate crime.

So far as I can see, the only thing you've really got to be unhappy about is that the hate crime statistics may be overestimated because the police record incidents as hate crimes while investigating whether a crime was actually committed. All the rest is mere fantasy.

Dave
 
jimbob said:
Given where it was, I'm willing to accept that it was addressing specific sectarian issues, which are different flavours of Christianity and bigotry around it.

However, I don't think that many of my Christian colleagues would think it was aimed at them, nor would they have anything to worry about. For the rather simple reason that they're not bigots.
Click to expand...

Based on what? As far as I knew apart from the shirts do the sectarian nutters in Scotland dress in religious wear?
 
Darat said:
Based on what? As far as I knew apart from the shirts do the sectarian nutters in Scotland dress in religious wear?
Click to expand...


Sometimes they wear sashes, which whilst not religious dress, certainly proclaims their religious affiliation.

But it isn't the clothing of the nutters, but the clothing of the victims.

Which could include Catholic crosses, for example.

However, this was just me trying my best to be generous to Baron's claim that it was aimed at Christians.

If that poster was intended to be aimed at Christians, it was aimed at sectarian hate within Christianity.

But as you say, it's more likely to be aimed at bigotry in general.
 
Darat said:
From the wording of the poster it certainly does not describe me nor any behaviour of myself, nor of any of my friends.

ETA: Seriously Baron I've just gone back and looked at the wording again in case it was my comprehension that was at fault - but no it is quite clear it is aimed at those spreading hatred, attacking people for the way they dress and so on. If you think it describes your behaviour than I would have to say that yes you are a hateful bigot - but I don't think it does, I think you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick and refuse to acknowledge you may have misunderstood the poster.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the bullying tone of the text in the poster you appear to be judging it on the basis of what consider to be hateful. That's not how the law sees it, as I've explained and linked to. If you go round, say, talking of creationist loonies or Christian nutjobs or the Sky Daddy or posting mocking cartoons of God or Jesus and someone - anyone - takes offence then you are the bigot to whom that poster. refers. It might not meet the level of hatred you consider bigotry but that's irrelevant.

Dave Rogers said:
Because, of course, ordinary people may not know sufficient criminal law to realise that a crime has been committed. But as long as activity is not criminal, it clearly isn't defined as a hate crime.
Click to expand...

Have you listened to the video? Because that's not what's being said. The Commissioner said clearly that the police would investigate non-crimes that made people feel uncomfortable.

Darat said:
So far as I can see, the only thing you've really got to be unhappy about is that the hate crime statistics may be overestimated because the police record incidents as hate crimes while investigating whether a crime was actually committed.
Click to expand...

So you support blasphemy law in the UK. Because that's what this is. Or more accurately, blasphemy law is part of it.

And my overall views of the message has not changed. How easy would it be to write a paragraph that addresses religious hate crime without conveying any confusion whatsoever? Numerous Christian groups have already reported this poster. It's cleverly written, I grant you.
 
jimbob said:
Sometimes they wear sashes, which whilst not religious dress, certainly proclaims their religious affiliation.

But it isn't the clothing of the nutters, but the clothing of the victims.

Which could include Catholic crosses, for example.

However, this was just me trying my best to be generous to Baron's claim that it was aimed at Christians.

If that poster was intended to be aimed at Christians, it was aimed at sectarian hate within Christianity.

But as you say, it's more likely to be aimed at bigotry in general.
Click to expand...

Do you support its message? And what do you make of the fact the message itself actually appears to mock religion, with reference to 'faith' and 'end of sermon'?

I have a hard time understanding how these fascist laws regarding religious expression enjoy any support on this site.
 
baron said:
Leaving aside the bullying tone of the text in the poster you appear to be judging it on the basis of what consider to be hateful. That's not how the law sees it, as I've explained and linked to. If you go round, say, talking of creationist loonies or Christian nutjobs or the Sky Daddy or posting mocking cartoons of God or Jesus and someone - anyone - takes offence then you are the bigot to whom that poster. refers. It might not meet the level of hatred you consider bigotry but that's irrelevant.


<snip>

And my overall views of the message has not changed. How easy would it be to write a paragraph that addresses religious hate crime without conveying any confusion whatsoever? Numerous Christian groups have already reported this poster. It's cleverly written, I grant you.
Click to expand...

The poster is one of a series of posters aimed at demonstrating that the Scottish authorities are taking all types of hate crime seriously

https://www.scotsman.com/news/scott...tland-campaign-to-tackle-hate-crime-1-4805202

The fact that the one aimed at religious hatred uses language of faith is perfectly reasonable - non-religious people don't believe that other religions are blasphemous or heresy, for example.
 
To clarify the terminology, it appears that there is a distinction between hate crime and hate incidents. Both are dealt with by the police but a hate crime (as I posted above) is one that has been established in law to be a crime; a hate incident is not a crime but is still investigated by the police.
 
Planigale said:
This is untrue. Commonwealth citizens e.g. India, Pakistan, Australia, Trinidad, Canada are allowed to vote. Also they are allowed to be MPs.

(Because unlike those traitorous treasonous slave owning rebels in the US they are loyal to Her Majesty).
Click to expand...
Irish citizens resident in the UK can vote in parliamentary elections.
 
It seems very clear to me that the bigots who are the target of the poster are those expressing "religious hate". i.e. expressing hate of someone's religion, irrespective of the religion or lack of religion of the bigots themselves.

In other words it's entirely obvious that "religious hate" means hate of someone else's religion and not theologically-based hatred of someone's fashion sense.
 
Darat said:
I'm just going to post this here - I am about to go into one of (if my recollection is correct) most "diverse" towns in the UK, Slough. If I don't make it back can someone make sure my PC is wiped of er... interesting stuff.. before my mother gets her hands on it.
Click to expand...
Just don't recite 'Slough' or you'll be arrested no doubt.

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
 
Information Analyst said:
Yes. It's notable that while the RIC very much deviated from Peel's model, the separate Dublin Metropolitan Police was based more firmly on it, and - significantly - were never armed. As a result, they were trusted far more by the population, and were much less likely to be the subject of Republican attack.
Click to expand...
The RIC was basically an armed gendarmerie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom