British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
That anyone would take a random tweet posted by @williamglenn seriously?
Er, there’s a video in the tweet. Everything @williamglenn says is true
Except the policeman didn't say it.
The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that.
I think we can all guess what went on here. An ethnic went to remonstrate with this far-right street-protest group and the old bloke said 'Speak English Gunga Din' (or words to that effect) in an attempt to belittle the remonstrator. Fair enough for this to be perceived as a racial slight. Whether we should have laws in place that allow such things to become criminal offences is another discussion. Either way the pig was actually just doing his job.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
So, it has to be a crime already to be a hate crime, by that definition.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
maybe you need to evaluate your life choices if you can't find any way to communicate without hating on people.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
That anyone would take a random tweet posted by @williamglenn seriously?
Er, there’s a video in the tweet. Everything @williamglenn says is true
Except the policeman didn't say it.
The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that.
Which statute are you referring to here? Not familiar with that.
I hope now Isam has come back you’re not going to be an arsehole in your exchanges. As you were in those which precipitated his departure.
You keep repeating this palpable bullshit. Offensive enough for you? According to Isam himself, he lost his password, but you keep on with your bizarre obsession about my levels of civility. Being a snowflake on someone else’s behalf takes some doing.
Oh, and I looked back at my post to you about equal pay that you are still inexplicably offended by. I mean, FFS…grow up.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
So, it has to be a crime already to be a hate crime, by that definition.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
That's certainly true.
At the same time, taking a single video posted on Twitter, and implying that elderly partially deaf people who say "speak English" are going to be committing hate crimes, is a distortion too.
Absolutely. Context is king, and a video clip like this in isolation is so typical of attempts to stir up social media outrage that I would be suspicious. We don't know what was said by either party in the run up.
A couple of decades ago a policemen warning people to calm down and stop winding each other up would both go unremarked outside the handful of witnesses, and be regarded as good proactive policing.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
maybe you need to evaluate your life choices if you can't find any way to communicate without hating on people.
The whole issue comes down to defining what actually ‘hating’ means. It seems somewhat opaque. As the witless plod says in this video some people may perceive it that way.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
That's certainly true.
At the same time, taking a single video posted on Twitter, and implying that elderly partially deaf people who say "speak English" are going to be committing hate crimes, is a distortion too.
Absolutely. Context is king, and a video clip like this in isolation is so typical of attempts to stir up social media outrage that I would be suspicious. We don't know what was said by either party in the run up.
A couple of decades ago a policemen warning people to calm down and stop winding each other up would both go unremarked outside the handful of witnesses, and be regarded as good proactive policing.
Is this reliable source? As if true, back on the market rollercoaster.
‘Soon’
I’d be amazed if these come back.
The bond market has battered Trump whatever his fans may claim he lost bigly this week
Semiconductor and electronic tariffs will come in a month or so, US Commerce Secretary Lutnick has said
Yes, do you think they actually will ?
I’m not sure.
Trouble is that the forces that made the tariffs seem like a good idea are still there. Trump still wants the money for federal revenues and still thinks that he can get jobs back into the rust belt by discouraging imports.
Besides, what's the mechanism that stops him having another go?
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
So it has to be a criminal offence in the first place. Saying "speak English" is obviously not a crime. So if it is perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice (and it may well be) it still isn't a hate crime. It has to be a crime in the first place.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
That anyone would take a random tweet posted by @williamglenn seriously?
Er, there’s a video in the tweet. Everything @williamglenn says is true
Except the policeman didn't say it.
The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that.
Which statute are you referring to here? Not familiar with that.
I hope now Isam has come back you’re not going to be an arsehole in your exchanges. As you were in those which precipitated his departure.
You keep repeating this palpable bullshit. Offensive enough for you? According to Isam himself, he lost his password, but you keep on with your bizarre obsession about my levels of civility. Being a snowflake on someone else’s behalf takes some doing.
Oh, and I looked back at my post to you about equal pay that you are still inexplicably offended by. I mean, FFS…grow up.
You aren’t civil. Anything but.
Hope you’ve found peace as when you flounced the once you seemed to have some issues you’re dealing with. As unpleasant a person as you are on here I do not wish you any ill as I said at the time.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
That anyone would take a random tweet posted by @williamglenn seriously?
Er, there’s a video in the tweet. Everything @williamglenn says is true
Except the policeman didn't say it.
The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that.
I think we can all guess what went on here. An ethnic went to remonstrate with this far-right street-protest group and the old bloke said 'Speak English Gunga Din' (or words to that effect) in an attempt to belittle the remonstrator. Fair enough for this to be perceived as a racial slight. Whether we should have laws in place that allow such things to become criminal offences is another discussion. Either way the pig was actually just doing his job.
We're in great shape if this is what constitutes police oppression in the UK.
Is this reliable source? As if true, back on the market rollercoaster.
‘Soon’
I’d be amazed if these come back.
The bond market has battered Trump whatever his fans may claim he lost bigly this week
Semiconductor and electronic tariffs will come in a month or so, US Commerce Secretary Lutnick has said
Yes, do you think they actually will ?
I’m not sure.
Trouble is that the forces that made the tariffs seem like a good idea are still there. Trump still wants the money for federal revenues and still thinks that he can get jobs back into the rust belt by discouraging imports.
Besides, what's the mechanism that stops him having another go?
There’s none, you’re right.
My real,hope is reading on Twitter from people in the US investment community is the talk that Navarro and Lutnick have been sidelined in favour of Bessent.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
That's certainly true.
At the same time, taking a single video posted on Twitter, and implying that elderly partially deaf people who say "speak English" are going to be committing hate crimes, is a distortion too.
Absolutely. Context is king, and a video clip like this in isolation is so typical of attempts to stir up social media outrage that I would be suspicious. We don't know what was said by either party in the run up.
A couple of decades ago a policemen warning people to calm down and stop winding each other up would both go unremarked outside the handful of witnesses, and be regarded as good proactive policing.
The truth is social media has been a gold mine for provovcateurs whose sole motivation is to create an adversarial, hostile atmosphere which radicalises on the one hand and denigrated compromise and reason on the other.
To be fair, provocation has always played a role in politics to an extent and now you don't need mobs on the street, all you need are camera phones, an absence of context and a sense of grievance.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type unscrewed that up. The issue is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it.
There are two separate questions: whether the act itself constitutes a crime under Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 and whether the offence was racially or religiously aggravated under Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In the first case there does need to be intent to cause harassment, but in the second it's just a question of the offender's behaviour, not their intent.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
That anyone would take a random tweet posted by @williamglenn seriously?
Er, there’s a video in the tweet. Everything @williamglenn says is true
Except the policeman didn't say it.
The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that.
I think we can all guess what went on here. An ethnic went to remonstrate with this far-right street-protest group and the old bloke said 'Speak English Gunga Din' (or words to that effect) in an attempt to belittle the remonstrator. Fair enough for this to be perceived as a racial slight. Whether we should have laws in place that allow such things to become criminal offences is another discussion. Either way the pig was actually just doing his job.
We're in great shape if this is what constitutes police oppression in the UK.
No, it’s more the thousands of arrests, the many many many trials, and the hundreds if not thousands of people going to jail for fucking tweets that offend Two Tier Kier. It’s that. That’s what makes me ashamed to be British
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
So it has to be a criminal offence in the first place. Saying "speak English" is obviously not a crime. So if it is perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice (and it may well be) it still isn't a hate crime. It has to be a crime in the first place.
We have elections in Canada (April 28) and Australia (May 3) and having looked for a long period as though the Conservative opposition parties in both parties were going to trounce the ruling Governments, it now looks, thanks to Donald Trump, far from inconceivable Mark Carney for the Liberals in Canada and Anthony Albanese for Labor in Australia, will prevail.
That will leave only Christopher Luxon as a Prime Minister from the conservative side of the street in the CANZUK group of countries.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The policeman should not have said what he said. At the same time, the summary of British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime is inaccurate, if you take the trouble to listen to the video.
Should the whole area of hate crimes be scrapped? Absolutely: ultimately, a crime is a crime.
But is that video representative of what @williamglenn wrote? And is the reality that people are being convicted for saying things like "speak English"?
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
So it has to be a criminal offence in the first place. Saying "speak English" is obviously not a crime. So if it is perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice (and it may well be) it still isn't a hate crime. It has to be a crime in the first place.
EDIT I see RCS beat me to it.
So the plod is in error here ?
Yes of course they are.
They shouldn't ever go around saying things like "might" or "percieve".
They could probably say something like "calm down, sir", and "we wouldn't want anything approaching breach of the peace, would we sir?"
But plod definitely should not have said what they said.
Can I bet the house of Mcilroy to win his first Masters? Or will Bryson De Shambles do it?
As the Racing Post's golf tipster, Steve Palmer, reminds us, it's about handling mental pressure as much as hitting the balls as victory approaches. He suggested a small interest in Ludvig Aaberg at 40/1, fwiw.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The policeman should not have said what he said. At the same time, the summary of British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime is inaccurate, if you take the trouble to listen to the video.
Should the whole area of hate crimes be scrapped? Absolutely: ultimately, a crime is a crime.
But is that video representative of what @williamglenn wrote? And is the reality that people are being convicted for saying things like "speak English"?
No, of course not.
Those weren’t my words. I was just quoting the tweet which is why it was in italics.
The Trump love is still strong with this arsehole.
It's a tricky position he's in.
The "cutting woke waste" fairy is the only way anyone has of resolving the high tax/poor services dilemma that everyone is struggling with.
Once you have a Union Flag flying outside County Hall and rejigged planning policy so that Ed Milliband can overturn your solar farm refusals, what is the distinctively Reform way of running the county council?
It becomes less of a fairy if the party highlighting it have done their homework, which it appears Reform have.
Have any of the other parties who stand to gain councillors not lose them (Lib Dems, Greens) been looking into potential savings and bothered their arses doing FOI requests to identify waste?
Where I disagree with Reform, and I’ve discussed this with some of their candidates, is they would ‘audit’ spend.
Who would do the audit ? They cannot say how it would be carried out and if they could get any money back.
I suspect all that would happen would be the auditors would make some money and the council tax payer would pay for it and we won’t get a penny back. Like Labours pathetic PPE audit which I doubt will yield anything for the taxpayer.
At an abstract level, there is definitely scope for auditing in local government.
The various council financial collapses indicate that there are orders of magnitude more that are just on the edge.
The real problem is the complete disconnection between revenue sources, service provision and obligations.
Local councils are already audited, under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, I believe.
We have elections in Canada (April 28) and Australia (May 3) and having looked for a long period as though the Conservative opposition parties in both parties were going to trounce the ruling Governments, it now looks, thanks to Donald Trump, far from inconceivable Mark Carney for the Liberals in Canada and Anthony Albanese for Labor in Australia, will prevail.
That will leave only Christopher Luxon as a Prime Minister from the conservative side of the street in the CANZUK group of countries.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
I am not completely up on this religion thing but I don't think that the Israelis are particularly up on the New Testament. I'm pretty sure that was the point of it all.
I was faintly remembering HY as a Christian. It seemed like a rather un-Christian thought - even to project onto others.
I always find it amusing when someone says that someone is acting in an “unchristian”, “unislamic”, “unhindu” manner. Etc.
Especially when there are example of famous adherents to the various religious behaving exactly thus. Often within living memory.
Unchristian is a strange one, as the most unchristian people I've ever met go to church most often and are often high up in the Deanery / Diocese.
Many years ago, I went to a book signing thing by an ex (ha!) PIRA guy. I discussed the bombings that he’d been involved with. It became clear he wanted forgiveness and absolution from the world without the slightest expression of regret for what he had done. Old, doddery and evidently an alcoholic.
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
The guy who'd written the book was almost certainly one though.
I wonder whether he knew of any desire for forgiveness on the part of, say, the shooters who let rip on Bloody Sunday.
What do we gain from keeping this monster in prison for 55 years? He will take every chance to kill and maim again - so the only way to control him IS the Israeli method. Solitary confinement like Hannibal Lecter for the rest of his life. Which will be extremely expensive - and is not guaranteed to work
We need to get over our squeamishness about the death penalty. Execute him
Reform should put a referendum on the death penalty in their manifesto. Let the British voters decide
Israel has not executed anyone since 1962. The only two people ever executed in Israel are Meir Tobianski, for treason in 1948, and Adolf Eichmann in 1962.
Also, if Reform are serious about wanting to form the next government, then they need to reassure the public that they won't behave like fascistic lunatics when they gain power.
If Reform run on the death penalty as a main campaign issue, then Labour will be able to easily exploit this and argue that Reform want the death penalty back not just to hang murderers, but to also hang their political opponents.
Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations is a 2018 book by Ronen Bergman about the history of targeted assassinations by Israel's intelligence services.[1] Its author writes that Israel has assassinated more people than any western country since World War II.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
That anyone would take a random tweet posted by @williamglenn seriously?
Er, there’s a video in the tweet. Everything @williamglenn says is true
Except the policeman didn't say it.
The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that.
I think we can all guess what went on here. An ethnic went to remonstrate with this far-right street-protest group and the old bloke said 'Speak English Gunga Din' (or words to that effect) in an attempt to belittle the remonstrator. Fair enough for this to be perceived as a racial slight. Whether we should have laws in place that allow such things to become criminal offences is another discussion. Either way the pig was actually just doing his job.
We're in great shape if this is what constitutes police oppression in the UK.
No, it’s more the thousands of arrests, the many many many trials, and the hundreds if not thousands of people going to jail for fucking tweets that offend Two Tier Kier. It’s that. That’s what makes me ashamed to be British
There's something about the Sunday morning political interview which leads to normally sensible people going a bit silly - perhaps not having had breakfast first, who knows?
I thought it would be difficult to top Farage but step forward Andrew Griffith who is apparently the Shadow Business Secreatary and illustrates the wealth of talent on the Conservative benches when he claimed, in a sign of clear Conservative panic and desperation, the Liberal Democrats were "extremists" who "promote veganism".
But appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Farage said: “The real point here is both sides have to make concessions. I’m not going to say what I think should be in those concessions. Clearly, at the heart of it is Crimea.”
Asked whether Ukraine “should be willing to compromise on Crimea”, Farage replied: “That’s at the heart of it.
Is this reliable source? As if true, back on the market rollercoaster.
‘Soon’
I’d be amazed if these come back.
The bond market has battered Trump whatever his fans may claim he lost bigly this week
Semiconductor and electronic tariffs will come in a month or so, US Commerce Secretary Lutnick has said
Yes, do you think they actually will ?
I’m not sure.
Trouble is that the forces that made the tariffs seem like a good idea are still there. Trump still wants the money for federal revenues and still thinks that he can get jobs back into the rust belt by discouraging imports.
Besides, what's the mechanism that stops him having another go?
There’s none, you’re right.
My real,hope is reading on Twitter from people in the US investment community is the talk that Navarro and Lutnick have been sidelined in favour of Bessent.
If true, it'll only last a day and then there'll be another change of mind and Bessent will be out of the loop.
Is this reliable source? As if true, back on the market rollercoaster.
‘Soon’
I’d be amazed if these come back.
The bond market has battered Trump whatever his fans may claim he lost bigly this week
Semiconductor and electronic tariffs will come in a month or so, US Commerce Secretary Lutnick has said
Yes, do you think they actually will ?
I’m not sure.
Trouble is that the forces that made the tariffs seem like a good idea are still there. Trump still wants the money for federal revenues and still thinks that he can get jobs back into the rust belt by discouraging imports.
Besides, what's the mechanism that stops him having another go?
There’s none, you’re right.
My real,hope is reading on Twitter from people in the US investment community is the talk that Navarro and Lutnick have been sidelined in favour of Bessent.
The trouble is that Trump has been singing this tune for decades. There are clips from a 1988 Oprah interview on YouTube. China is our enemy. America's so-called allies are freeloading on the States, and so on. His allegedly crazy advisers are knocking on an open door.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The policeman should not have said what he said. At the same time, the summary of British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime is inaccurate, if you take the trouble to listen to the video.
Should the whole area of hate crimes be scrapped? Absolutely: ultimately, a crime is a crime.
But is that video representative of what @williamglenn wrote? And is the reality that people are being convicted for saying things like "speak English"?
No, of course not.
People are being menaced by police for saying “speak English”
Democracy is doomed and we are governed by weak Woke morons. I feel slightly sorry for the coppers that have to enforce this lunacy, but then they are stupid fat fucks, as well
Is this reliable source? As if true, back on the market rollercoaster.
‘Soon’
I’d be amazed if these come back.
The bond market has battered Trump whatever his fans may claim he lost bigly this week
Semiconductor and electronic tariffs will come in a month or so, US Commerce Secretary Lutnick has said
Yes, do you think they actually will ?
I’m not sure.
Trouble is that the forces that made the tariffs seem like a good idea are still there. Trump still wants the money for federal revenues and still thinks that he can get jobs back into the rust belt by discouraging imports.
Besides, what's the mechanism that stops him having another go?
I’ve just seen the Lutnick interview on YouTube and he says the tariffs on electronics and semi conductors are ‘probably coming in a month or two’. I’d be amazed if they come.
We have elections in Canada (April 28) and Australia (May 3) and having looked for a long period as though the Conservative opposition parties in both parties were going to trounce the ruling Governments, it now looks, thanks to Donald Trump, far from inconceivable Mark Carney for the Liberals in Canada and Anthony Albanese for Labor in Australia, will prevail.
That will leave only Christopher Luxon as a Prime Minister from the conservative side of the street in the CANZUK group of countries.
Economic doldrums and net emigration of NZ citizens is not a good combination electorally
To be fair, the latest poll (albeit conducted before the Trump tariff nonsense of the last few days) had the current coalition being returned were there an election now. National would lose a few seats to Labour but the Greens are also down a notch so the overall numbers would be 64 for the current National, NZF and ACT Government and 58 for Labour, Green and Te Pati Maori.
The next NZ election isn't due until October 2026 so that's an eternity away.
The Trump love is still strong with this arsehole.
It's a tricky position he's in.
The "cutting woke waste" fairy is the only way anyone has of resolving the high tax/poor services dilemma that everyone is struggling with.
Once you have a Union Flag flying outside County Hall and rejigged planning policy so that Ed Milliband can overturn your solar farm refusals, what is the distinctively Reform way of running the county council?
It becomes less of a fairy if the party highlighting it have done their homework, which it appears Reform have.
Have any of the other parties who stand to gain councillors not lose them (Lib Dems, Greens) been looking into potential savings and bothered their arses doing FOI requests to identify waste?
Where I disagree with Reform, and I’ve discussed this with some of their candidates, is they would ‘audit’ spend.
Who would do the audit ? They cannot say how it would be carried out and if they could get any money back.
I suspect all that would happen would be the auditors would make some money and the council tax payer would pay for it and we won’t get a penny back. Like Labours pathetic PPE audit which I doubt will yield anything for the taxpayer.
At an abstract level, there is definitely scope for auditing in local government.
The various council financial collapses indicate that there are orders of magnitude more that are just on the edge.
The real problem is the complete disconnection between revenue sources, service provision and obligations.
Local councils are already audited, under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, I believe.
Which entirely missed the insane mismanagement of places such as Woking.
But appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Farage said: “The real point here is both sides have to make concessions. I’m not going to say what I think should be in those concessions. Clearly, at the heart of it is Crimea.”
Asked whether Ukraine “should be willing to compromise on Crimea”, Farage replied: “That’s at the heart of it.
Is this reliable source? As if true, back on the market rollercoaster.
‘Soon’
I’d be amazed if these come back.
The bond market has battered Trump whatever his fans may claim he lost bigly this week
Semiconductor and electronic tariffs will come in a month or so, US Commerce Secretary Lutnick has said
Yes, do you think they actually will ?
I’m not sure.
Trouble is that the forces that made the tariffs seem like a good idea are still there. Trump still wants the money for federal revenues and still thinks that he can get jobs back into the rust belt by discouraging imports.
Besides, what's the mechanism that stops him having another go?
There’s none, you’re right.
My real,hope is reading on Twitter from people in the US investment community is the talk that Navarro and Lutnick have been sidelined in favour of Bessent.
The trouble is that Trump has been singing this tune for decades. There are clips from a 1988 Oprah interview on YouTube. China is our enemy. America's so-called allies are freeloading on the States, and so on. His allegedly crazy advisers are knocking on an open door.
Yes they are, you’re absolutely right. But the Bond market is something they cannot ignore.
I don’t usually like terms like crazy but in the case of Navarro…..
Can I bet the house of Mcilroy to win his first Masters? Or will Bryson De Shambles do it?
I'm on Rory pre tourny at 7/1 and I'm taking some profit because DeChambeau is a big occasion player who's good under pressure. But if Rory keeps his level he'll pull away and win easily. That's what I hope happens. I don't want it to be close. Can't stand DeChambeau even though he's box office. He's a magamoron and (worse) his favourite Bond is Pierce Brosnan.
The only other player I give a chance to is Aberg. He needs a 65/66 and for Rory and Bryson to get too involved with each other. 42 on Betfair is value imo.
Can I bet the house of Mcilroy to win his first Masters? Or will Bryson De Shambles do it?
I'm on Rory pre tourny at 7/1 and I'm taking some profit because DeChambeau is a big occasion player who's good under pressure. But if Rory keeps his level he'll pull away and win easily. That's what I hope happens. I don't want it to be close. Can't stand DeChambeau even though he's box office. He's a magamoron and (worse) his favourite Bond is Pierce Brosnan.
The only other player I give a chance to is Aberg. He needs a 65/66 and for Rory and Bryson to get too involved with each other. 42 on Betfair is value.
I am not really a fan of Rory. Having watched the two seasons of the Netflix show he comes off really badly. And yes shows can be edited etc, but some of the things he says knowing the cameras are there are pretty shitty e.g. he has a go at Tony Finau. His wife has lost her mother, so he decides that the best thing to do is have his family travel around with him to every tour spot. Finau comes from very humble background and seems an all round nice bloke, but Rory has some sort of issue with him and comes off looking like a giant douche.
But appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Farage said: “The real point here is both sides have to make concessions. I’m not going to say what I think should be in those concessions. Clearly, at the heart of it is Crimea.”
Asked whether Ukraine “should be willing to compromise on Crimea”, Farage replied: “That’s at the heart of it.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The perception and intent of the accused is just as important.
Let's look at what Billy said -
"The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that." ("he" being the author of a Tweet that said "British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.")
In my view, William was suggesting that simply saying "speak English", without intent, could be a hate crime based solely on the perception of complainant. I was saying that is not true. The definition of a crime under section 4A (the section he is relying on) is indeed partially, dependent on the perception of the victim, much like common assault, but the perception of the accused is just as important.
Most criminal offenses require two elements. A mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act).
In this offence the accused has to have (1) intended to causes harassment (mens rea) and (2) actually causes harassment (actus reus) by using the type of language stated. If he didn't intend to cause distress, but did, then there is no offence. William was suggesting the opposite.
The provision is similar to assault under the common law in that it requires a victim "to fear immediate unlawful violence". In both, the perception of the victim is only part of the actus reus in making out the offence (the other being the actual words used) and hat is not the whole offence, as William (in context) was suggesting.
Further, the accused has a defence if what he was saying was "reasonable".
So, as I say, it is the perception/intent of the accused that is key in making out the offence as much as the perception.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
From Wikipedia:
Turning Point UK (TPUK) is a British offshoot of the American student pressure group Turning Point USA.[1] The UK group was set up to promote right-wing politics in UK schools, colleges and universities, with the stated aim of countering what Turning Point UK alleges are the left-wing politics of UK educational institutions.[2] The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right.[3]
Turning Point UK describes its objectives as promoting "the values of free markets, limited government and personal responsibility". It says it does this to counter what it alleges is "a dogmatic left-wing political climate, education system and radical Labour Party" which, Turning Point UK states, "sympathises with terrorists [and] wishes to disarm the nation".[4]
The group was launched in December 2018[5] by Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, and Candace Owens, then the communications director of the US group,[6] at the Royal Automobile Club in London.[5] On the day of its social media launch in February 2019, some Conservative MPs including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel tweeted supportive messages for the group.[7][8] Labour MP David Lammy stated that the launch and its Tory support were evidence that the Conservative Party "openly promotes hard-right, xenophobic bile".[9] From its inception, the organisation and its leading members were the subject of widespread popular ridicule. It was described by the BBC as "a tsunami of online mockery".[10][11]
- Universal “reciprocal tariffs” - A removal back down to 10% - 50% Chinese tariffs - 90% Chinese tariffs - 104% Chinese tariffs - 125% Chinese tariffs - 145% Chinese tariffs - Electronics exempted - Electronics now potentially back on.
If you were a CFO of a Fortune 500 company, would you approve any new investment in a country this unstable?
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The perception and intent of the accused is just as important.
Let's look at what Billy said -
"The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that." ("he" being the author of a Tweet that said "British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.")
In my view, William was suggesting that simply saying "speak English", without intent, could be a hate crime based solely on the perception of complainant. I was saying that is not true. The definition of a crime under section 4A (the section he is relying on) is indeed partially, dependent on the perception of the victim, much like common assault, but the perception of the accused is just as important.
Most criminal offenses require two elements. A mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act).
In this offence the accused has to have (1) intended to causes harassment (mens rea) and (2) actually causes harassment (actus reus) by using the type of language stated. If he didn't intend to cause distress, but did, then there is no offence. William was suggesting the opposite.
The provision is similar to assault under the common law in that it requires a victim "to fear immediate unlawful violence". In both, the perception of the victim is only part of the actus reus in making out the offence (the other being the actual words used) and hat is not the whole offence, as William (in context) was suggesting.
Further, the accused has a defence if what he was saying was "reasonable".
So, as I say, it is the perception/intent of the accused that is key in making out the offence as much as the perception.
I hope that helps.
The discussion has got off track and you have talked yourself into a position of accusing the CPS of misinterpreting the law.
The intitial point of contention was whether the policeman had said that saying "Speak English" was a hate crime which was disputed because he only said that it could be perceived as a hate crime. My point was that this amounts to the same thing because the test of whether or not something constitutes a hate crime (assuming that a crime has been committed) doesn't depend on the offender's intent.
“In a study by Ihle-Hansen et al. (2017), of 3,413 Norwegian participants aged 63–65, of whom 47% had higher education (over 12 years), under 5% of subjects scored 30/30 with a mean MoCA score of 25.3”
So, 30/30 would be a surprise for a healthy, non-impaired man. The only possible explanation can be that Trump is a super-genius. They can’t possibly just be making this stuff up.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
From Wikipedia:
Turning Point UK (TPUK) is a British offshoot of the American student pressure group Turning Point USA.[1] The UK group was set up to promote right-wing politics in UK schools, colleges and universities, with the stated aim of countering what Turning Point UK alleges are the left-wing politics of UK educational institutions.[2] The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right.[3]
Turning Point UK describes its objectives as promoting "the values of free markets, limited government and personal responsibility". It says it does this to counter what it alleges is "a dogmatic left-wing political climate, education system and radical Labour Party" which, Turning Point UK states, "sympathises with terrorists [and] wishes to disarm the nation".[4]
The group was launched in December 2018[5] by Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, and Candace Owens, then the communications director of the US group,[6] at the Royal Automobile Club in London.[5] On the day of its social media launch in February 2019, some Conservative MPs including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel tweeted supportive messages for the group.[7][8] Labour MP David Lammy stated that the launch and its Tory support were evidence that the Conservative Party "openly promotes hard-right, xenophobic bile".[9] From its inception, the organisation and its leading members were the subject of widespread popular ridicule. It was described by the BBC as "a tsunami of online mockery".[10][11]
“From Wikipedia”
I know Jimmy Wales. No joke. I do (it’s a long story, he lives in the UK)
He laments that it has been hijacked by a cabal of left wing editors who have turned it into a pathetic shadow of what it was. Almost any contentious political/religious topic is now a biased screed of Woke gibberish, rigorously fenced off from more sensible editing
Sad. Enshittification of Wiki can be added to the many other Enshittifications
Can I bet the house of Mcilroy to win his first Masters? Or will Bryson De Shambles do it?
I'm on Rory pre tourny at 7/1 and I'm taking some profit because DeChambeau is a big occasion player who's good under pressure. But if Rory keeps his level he'll pull away and win easily. That's what I hope happens. I don't want it to be close. Can't stand DeChambeau even though he's box office. He's a magamoron and (worse) his favourite Bond is Pierce Brosnan.
The only other player I give a chance to is Aberg. He needs a 65/66 and for Rory and Bryson to get too involved with each other. 42 on Betfair is value.
I am not really a fan of Rory. Having watched the two seasons of the Netflix show he comes off really badly. And yes shows can be edited etc, but some of the things he says knowing the cameras are there are pretty shitty e.g. he has a go at Tony Finau. His wife has lost her mother, so he decides that the best thing to do is have his family travel around with him to every tour spot. Finau comes from very humble background and seems an all round nice bloke, but Rory has some sort of issue with him and comes off looking like a giant douche.
Haven't seen that so can't comment on it but I like him. And Finau for that matter.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
“In a study by Ihle-Hansen et al. (2017), of 3,413 Norwegian participants aged 63–65, of whom 47% had higher education (over 12 years), under 5% of subjects scored 30/30 with a mean MoCA score of 25.3”
So, 30/30 would be a surprise for a healthy, non-impaired man. The only possible explanation can be that Trump is a super-genius. They can’t possibly just be making this stuff up.
Given the bloke who went in for the examination is 6ft 3" and weighs 224 pounds, are we sure the worlds worst Trump doppelganger didn't sit the test?
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
Looking back at it, the editing is very strange. For example the previous conversation is cut off. It starts out with the copper saying "if you do, that would be really handy for us."
I missed the Turning Point UK watermark. Obviously they are who they are.
Looking more closely, it's a stand promoting Reform UK in the Market Place in Wisbech. It geolocates to here:
It's also worth a note that the Twitter feed posting it - @BenonWine - self identifies as a "conservative patriot", has (imo - thinking of OGH) something of a record of posting race-baiting material *, and is trying to set himself up as a martyr due to disciplinary action at work related to his social media output.
* eg He posted this today, which is stirring up prejudice against Muslims, is from 2014, and was likely imo false flag shit-stirring even then.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
And that's before we even start on Reform....
Oh for sure. Reform will be just as bad
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The perception and intent of the accused is just as important.
Let's look at what Billy said -
"The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that." ("he" being the author of a Tweet that said "British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.")
In my view, William was suggesting that simply saying "speak English", without intent, could be a hate crime based solely on the perception of complainant. I was saying that is not true. The definition of a crime under section 4A (the section he is relying on) is indeed partially, dependent on the perception of the victim, much like common assault, but the perception of the accused is just as important.
Most criminal offenses require two elements. A mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act).
In this offence the accused has to have (1) intended to causes harassment (mens rea) and (2) actually causes harassment (actus reus) by using the type of language stated. If he didn't intend to cause distress, but did, then there is no offence. William was suggesting the opposite.
The provision is similar to assault under the common law in that it requires a victim "to fear immediate unlawful violence". In both, the perception of the victim is only part of the actus reus in making out the offence (the other being the actual words used) and hat is not the whole offence, as William (in context) was suggesting.
Further, the accused has a defence if what he was saying was "reasonable".
So, as I say, it is the perception/intent of the accused that is key in making out the offence as much as the perception.
I hope that helps.
The discussion has got off track and you have talked yourself into a position of accusing the CPS of misinterpreting the law.
The intitial point of contention was whether the policeman had said that saying "Speak English" was a hate crime which was disputed because he only said that it could be perceived as a hate crime. My point was that this amounts to the same thing because the test of whether or not something constitutes a hate crime (assuming that a crime has been committed) doesn't depend on the offender's intent.
The CPS agree with me -
"Section 4A carries a higher maximum than section 5. It requires the intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a specific victim. This can usually be proved where there is evidence of specific, directed abuse...
However, it is important to remember that proving the defendant’s intent is not enough. There must also be evidence of somebody (which need not be the person targeted) suffering actual harassment, alarm or distress as a result. The evidence of this could come from that person themselves or it could come from another witness who can say that the person displayed signs of harassment, alarm or distress. As the effect on the victim is an essential element of the offence, prosecutors should not presume that it had that effect but should seek evidence which is capable of proving it."
The are entitled to use the definition you quoted for their internal flagging and reporting purposes, which is what they do in the extract you posted. It's also the case that there is no criminal offence of "hate crime" for there to be a definition of. The CPS categorise, for their own purposes, a number of crimes under that heading. Offenses can be racially aggravated etc. but that's not the same thing
Just accept you're wrong, apologise, and we can move on.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
Looking back at it, the editing is very strange. For example the previous conversation is cut off. It starts out with the copper saying "if you do, that would be really handy for us."
I missed the Turning Point UK watermark. Obviously they are who they are.
Looking more closely, it's a stand promoting Reform UK in the Market Place in Wisbech. It geolocates to here:
It's also worth a note that the Twitter feed posting it - @BenonWine - self identifies as a "conservative patriot", has (imo - thinking of OGH) something of a record of posting race-baiting material *, and is trying to set himself up as a martyr due to disciplinary action at work related to his social media output.
* eg He posted this today, which is stirring up prejudice against Muslims, is from 2014, and was likely imo false flag shit-stirring even then.
How do we know he's partially deaf? He should have then said "speak clearly" not "Speak English", as the second phrase is a common term of passive aggression, especially from a right wing Gammon standing at a Reform UK spot.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
And that's before we even start on Reform....
Oh for sure. Reform will be just as bad
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
And that's before we even start on Reform....
Oh for sure. Reform will be just as bad
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
And that's before we even start on Reform....
Oh for sure. Reform will be just as bad
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
All real talent is absorbed by corporations and universities, leaving the dregs for national politics. But in all fairness, who looks at contemporary politics and social media landscape and say: wow that looks fun and rewarding? Very very few people. It is ruthless and off putting.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The perception and intent of the accused is just as important.
Let's look at what Billy said -
"The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that." ("he" being the author of a Tweet that said "British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.")
In my view, William was suggesting that simply saying "speak English", without intent, could be a hate crime based solely on the perception of complainant. I was saying that is not true. The definition of a crime under section 4A (the section he is relying on) is indeed partially, dependent on the perception of the victim, much like common assault, but the perception of the accused is just as important.
Most criminal offenses require two elements. A mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act).
In this offence the accused has to have (1) intended to causes harassment (mens rea) and (2) actually causes harassment (actus reus) by using the type of language stated. If he didn't intend to cause distress, but did, then there is no offence. William was suggesting the opposite.
The provision is similar to assault under the common law in that it requires a victim "to fear immediate unlawful violence". In both, the perception of the victim is only part of the actus reus in making out the offence (the other being the actual words used) and hat is not the whole offence, as William (in context) was suggesting.
Further, the accused has a defence if what he was saying was "reasonable".
So, as I say, it is the perception/intent of the accused that is key in making out the offence as much as the perception.
I hope that helps.
The discussion has got off track and you have talked yourself into a position of accusing the CPS of misinterpreting the law.
The intitial point of contention was whether the policeman had said that saying "Speak English" was a hate crime which was disputed because he only said that it could be perceived as a hate crime. My point was that this amounts to the same thing because the test of whether or not something constitutes a hate crime (assuming that a crime has been committed) doesn't depend on the offender's intent.
The CPS agree with me -
"Section 4A carries a higher maximum than section 5. It requires the intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a specific victim. This can usually be proved where there is evidence of specific, directed abuse...
However, it is important to remember that proving the defendant’s intent is not enough. There must also be evidence of somebody (which need not be the person targeted) suffering actual harassment, alarm or distress as a result. The evidence of this could come from that person themselves or it could come from another witness who can say that the person displayed signs of harassment, alarm or distress. As the effect on the victim is an essential element of the offence, prosecutors should not presume that it had that effect but should seek evidence which is capable of proving it."
The are entitled to use the definition you quoted for their internal flagging and reporting purposes, which is what they do in the extract you posted. It's also the case that there is no criminal offence of "hate crime" for there to be a definition of. The CPS categorise, for their own purposes, a number of crimes under that heading. Offenses can be racially aggravated etc. but that's not the same thing
Just accept you're wrong, apologise, and we can move on.
No, I won't apologise for being right. Admittedly I carry some of the blame for pointing you to the statute by which using words alone could constitute an offence, but that is a separate issue from the definition of a hate crime. In this both the legislation, and the CPS's interpretation is clear that intent doesn't matter, only whether the offender "demonstrates hostility" based on a protected characteristic.
Why do you think the CPS state this explicitly if you think they agree with you?
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
From Wikipedia:
Turning Point UK (TPUK) is a British offshoot of the American student pressure group Turning Point USA.[1] The UK group was set up to promote right-wing politics in UK schools, colleges and universities, with the stated aim of countering what Turning Point UK alleges are the left-wing politics of UK educational institutions.[2] The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right.[3]
Turning Point UK describes its objectives as promoting "the values of free markets, limited government and personal responsibility". It says it does this to counter what it alleges is "a dogmatic left-wing political climate, education system and radical Labour Party" which, Turning Point UK states, "sympathises with terrorists [and] wishes to disarm the nation".[4]
The group was launched in December 2018[5] by Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, and Candace Owens, then the communications director of the US group,[6] at the Royal Automobile Club in London.[5] On the day of its social media launch in February 2019, some Conservative MPs including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel tweeted supportive messages for the group.[7][8] Labour MP David Lammy stated that the launch and its Tory support were evidence that the Conservative Party "openly promotes hard-right, xenophobic bile".[9] From its inception, the organisation and its leading members were the subject of widespread popular ridicule. It was described by the BBC as "a tsunami of online mockery".[10][11]
“From Wikipedia”
I know Jimmy Wales. No joke. I do (it’s a long story, he lives in the UK)
He laments that it has been hijacked by a cabal of left wing editors who have turned it into a pathetic shadow of what it was. Almost any contentious political/religious topic is now a biased screed of Woke gibberish, rigorously fenced off from more sensible editing
Sad. Enshittification of Wiki can be added to the many other Enshittifications
I'm an editor on Wiki (Sunil060902), don't think I'm THAT left-wing
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The perception and intent of the accused is just as important.
Let's look at what Billy said -
"The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that." ("he" being the author of a Tweet that said "British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.")
In my view, William was suggesting that simply saying "speak English", without intent, could be a hate crime based solely on the perception of complainant. I was saying that is not true. The definition of a crime under section 4A (the section he is relying on) is indeed partially, dependent on the perception of the victim, much like common assault, but the perception of the accused is just as important.
Most criminal offenses require two elements. A mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act).
In this offence the accused has to have (1) intended to causes harassment (mens rea) and (2) actually causes harassment (actus reus) by using the type of language stated. If he didn't intend to cause distress, but did, then there is no offence. William was suggesting the opposite.
The provision is similar to assault under the common law in that it requires a victim "to fear immediate unlawful violence". In both, the perception of the victim is only part of the actus reus in making out the offence (the other being the actual words used) and hat is not the whole offence, as William (in context) was suggesting.
Further, the accused has a defence if what he was saying was "reasonable".
So, as I say, it is the perception/intent of the accused that is key in making out the offence as much as the perception.
I hope that helps.
The discussion has got off track and you have talked yourself into a position of accusing the CPS of misinterpreting the law.
The intitial point of contention was whether the policeman had said that saying "Speak English" was a hate crime which was disputed because he only said that it could be perceived as a hate crime. My point was that this amounts to the same thing because the test of whether or not something constitutes a hate crime (assuming that a crime has been committed) doesn't depend on the offender's intent.
The CPS agree with me -
"Section 4A carries a higher maximum than section 5. It requires the intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a specific victim. This can usually be proved where there is evidence of specific, directed abuse...
However, it is important to remember that proving the defendant’s intent is not enough. There must also be evidence of somebody (which need not be the person targeted) suffering actual harassment, alarm or distress as a result. The evidence of this could come from that person themselves or it could come from another witness who can say that the person displayed signs of harassment, alarm or distress. As the effect on the victim is an essential element of the offence, prosecutors should not presume that it had that effect but should seek evidence which is capable of proving it."
The are entitled to use the definition you quoted for their internal flagging and reporting purposes, which is what they do in the extract you posted. It's also the case that there is no criminal offence of "hate crime" for there to be a definition of. The CPS categorise, for their own purposes, a number of crimes under that heading. Offenses can be racially aggravated etc. but that's not the same thing
Just accept you're wrong, apologise, and we can move on.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
And that's before we even start on Reform....
Oh for sure. Reform will be just as bad
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
All real talent is absorbed by corporations and universities, leaving the dregs for national politics. But in all fairness, who looks at contemporary politics and social media landscape and say: wow that looks fun and rewarding? Very very few people. It is ruthless and off putting.
Indeed, I totally agree. And it is a major problem with modern democracy - the recent misgovernment of Britain is - possibly - sadly, for us - the standout example. Just look at this pitiful dance over coal/steel/net zero by Labour. it is laughably inept partly because it being done by actually quite thick people. In this case Ed Miliband and friends but there are equally terrible examples in ALL parties, from far left to far right. It is another reason I believe democracy is doomed
And on that somewhat depressing note, I am off to watch White Lotus Season 3, which is genuinely fun - and well-made
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
From Wikipedia:
Turning Point UK (TPUK) is a British offshoot of the American student pressure group Turning Point USA.[1] The UK group was set up to promote right-wing politics in UK schools, colleges and universities, with the stated aim of countering what Turning Point UK alleges are the left-wing politics of UK educational institutions.[2] The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right.[3]
Turning Point UK describes its objectives as promoting "the values of free markets, limited government and personal responsibility". It says it does this to counter what it alleges is "a dogmatic left-wing political climate, education system and radical Labour Party" which, Turning Point UK states, "sympathises with terrorists [and] wishes to disarm the nation".[4]
The group was launched in December 2018[5] by Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, and Candace Owens, then the communications director of the US group,[6] at the Royal Automobile Club in London.[5] On the day of its social media launch in February 2019, some Conservative MPs including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel tweeted supportive messages for the group.[7][8] Labour MP David Lammy stated that the launch and its Tory support were evidence that the Conservative Party "openly promotes hard-right, xenophobic bile".[9] From its inception, the organisation and its leading members were the subject of widespread popular ridicule. It was described by the BBC as "a tsunami of online mockery".[10][11]
“From Wikipedia”
I know Jimmy Wales. No joke. I do (it’s a long story, he lives in the UK)
He laments that it has been hijacked by a cabal of left wing editors who have turned it into a pathetic shadow of what it was. Almost any contentious political/religious topic is now a biased screed of Woke gibberish, rigorously fenced off from more sensible editing
Sad. Enshittification of Wiki can be added to the many other Enshittifications
I'm an editor on Wiki (Sunil060902), don't think I'm THAT left-wing
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
We already have a term. We are ruled by Oxbridge graduates.
Quite so
The utter mediocrity of David Cameron and Geo Osborne is quite the case study, of this
Odd that you should single out Dave and George. Their regime - during which the greatest political controversy concerned extending VAT to pasties - seems a relative golden age compared to that which Oxford graduates Boris, Liz and Rishi were soon to unleash.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The policeman should not have said what he said. At the same time, the summary of British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime is inaccurate, if you take the trouble to listen to the video.
Should the whole area of hate crimes be scrapped? Absolutely: ultimately, a crime is a crime.
But is that video representative of what @williamglenn wrote? And is the reality that people are being convicted for saying things like "speak English"?
No, of course not.
People are being menaced by police for saying “speak English”
Democracy is doomed and we are governed by weak Woke morons. I feel slightly sorry for the coppers that have to enforce this lunacy, but then they are stupid fat fucks, as well
Democracy becomes doomed when people are so certain in the rightness of their argument, that they go around spouting untruths, and feel themselves heroes for it.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
We already have a term. We are ruled by Oxbridge graduates.
Quite so
The utter mediocrity of David Cameron and Geo Osborne is quite the case study, of this
Odd that you should single out Dave and George. Their regime - during which the greatest political controversy concerned extending VAT to pasties - seems a relative golden age compared to that which Oxford graduates Boris, Liz and Rishi were soon to unleash.
The coalition was blamed for sending over a million people to an early grave because of austerity:
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
And that's before we even start on Reform....
Oh for sure. Reform will be just as bad
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
We already have a term. We are ruled by Oxbridge graduates.
Quite so
The utter mediocrity of David Cameron and Geo Osborne is quite the case study, of this
Odd that you should single out Dave and George. Their regime - during which the greatest political controversy concerned extending VAT to pasties - seems a relative golden age compared to that which Oxford graduates Boris, Liz and Rishi were soon to unleash.
David Cameron called a referendum on EU membership which he was by no means obliged to do. He was also passionately committed to UK membership of the EU, and he also told fellow EU members that there was “no way” he could lose
He then lost that referendum, and had to resign. Outfoxed by Boris and Farage. And that is all he will be known for. Losing an unloseable plebiscite that changed British history in a way he desperately didn’t want
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
We already have a term. We are ruled by Oxbridge graduates.
Quite so
The utter mediocrity of David Cameron and Geo Osborne is quite the case study, of this
Odd that you should single out Dave and George. Their regime - during which the greatest political controversy concerned extending VAT to pasties - seems a relative golden age compared to that which Oxford graduates Boris, Liz and Rishi were soon to unleash.
David Cameron called a referendum on EU membership which he was by no means obliged to do. He was also passionately committed to UK membership of the EU, and he also told fellow EU members that there was “no way” he could lose
He then lost that referendum, and had to resign. Outfoxed by Boris and Farage. And that is all he will be known for. Losing an unloseable plebiscite that changed British history in a way he desperately didn’t want
And he’s your example of a gifted politician?
Dave was only really in power during the coalition years. After that the nutters took over.
British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.
Incredible!
A policeman somewhat off the rails there, and wasting his own time.
Somewhere in a 1920s London commuter suburb, I'd say - from the architecture.
Out of interest, what organization does the 'Let's Make Britain Great Again' slogan on the guy's shirt relate to?
The video is watermarked "Turning Point UK", maybe it's them ? The kind of stuff William's Twitter feed is full of, anyway
Is the video, irrespective of where it’s come from, acceptable though. I’m not sure some gormless plod should be doing this. Quite frankly if we clamped down on anything anyone may ‘perceive’ as a hate crime that won’t leave an awful lot to say.
Looking back at it, the editing is very strange. For example the previous conversation is cut off. It starts out with the copper saying "if you do, that would be really handy for us."
I missed the Turning Point UK watermark. Obviously they are who they are.
Looking more closely, it's a stand promoting Reform UK in the Market Place in Wisbech. It geolocates to here:
It's also worth a note that the Twitter feed posting it - @BenonWine - self identifies as a "conservative patriot", has (imo - thinking of OGH) something of a record of posting race-baiting material *, and is trying to set himself up as a martyr due to disciplinary action at work related to his social media output.
* eg He posted this today, which is stirring up prejudice against Muslims, is from 2014, and was likely imo false flag shit-stirring even then.
The danger isn't governments doing stupid shit. Governments do stupid shit all the time (98% tax rates, anyone?), it's the getting rid of the systems of democracy because they are inconvenient to you.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
We already have a term. We are ruled by Oxbridge graduates.
Quite so
The utter mediocrity of David Cameron and Geo Osborne is quite the case study, of this
Odd that you should single out Dave and George. Their regime - during which the greatest political controversy concerned extending VAT to pasties - seems a relative golden age compared to that which Oxford graduates Boris, Liz and Rishi were soon to unleash.
David Cameron called a referendum on EU membership which he was by no means obliged to do. He was also passionately committed to UK membership of the EU, and he also told fellow EU members that there was “no way” he could lose
He then lost that referendum, and had to resign. Outfoxed by Boris and Farage. And that is all he will be known for. Losing an unloseable plebiscite that changed British history in a way he desperately didn’t want
And he’s your example of a gifted politician?
Dave was only really in power during the coalition years. After that the nutters took over.
What the fuck are you talking about? During the Coalition he was hampered. He got a MAJORITY in 2015. Then he called his referendum which, as he told Merkel, he could “never lose”
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
No - I asked for the statute. That’s not the offence. That is the CPS definition for reporting purposes, which is not the same thing, and the CPS isn’t the court. Please show me the Act with a link to legislation you’re referring to.
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
Here you go. You just have to construe it as "insulting words" with the hate crime element an aggravating feature.
Let me get this right. You are, unilaterally, inserting “insulting words” into section 4A? Is that correct?
Err, no:
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Let me clarify. Apologies. In a rush to type I screwed that up and my point with it. The issue, and the reason you are wrong, is as follows -
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
So whose perception is it, then?
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
The perception and intent of the accused is just as important.
Let's look at what Billy said -
"The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that." ("he" being the author of a Tweet that said "British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.")
In my view, William was suggesting that simply saying "speak English", without intent, could be a hate crime based solely on the perception of complainant. I was saying that is not true. The definition of a crime under section 4A (the section he is relying on) is indeed partially, dependent on the perception of the victim, much like common assault, but the perception of the accused is just as important.
Most criminal offenses require two elements. A mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act).
In this offence the accused has to have (1) intended to causes harassment (mens rea) and (2) actually causes harassment (actus reus) by using the type of language stated. If he didn't intend to cause distress, but did, then there is no offence. William was suggesting the opposite.
The provision is similar to assault under the common law in that it requires a victim "to fear immediate unlawful violence". In both, the perception of the victim is only part of the actus reus in making out the offence (the other being the actual words used) and hat is not the whole offence, as William (in context) was suggesting.
Further, the accused has a defence if what he was saying was "reasonable".
So, as I say, it is the perception/intent of the accused that is key in making out the offence as much as the perception.
I hope that helps.
The discussion has got off track and you have talked yourself into a position of accusing the CPS of misinterpreting the law.
The intitial point of contention was whether the policeman had said that saying "Speak English" was a hate crime which was disputed because he only said that it could be perceived as a hate crime. My point was that this amounts to the same thing because the test of whether or not something constitutes a hate crime (assuming that a crime has been committed) doesn't depend on the offender's intent.
The CPS agree with me -
"Section 4A carries a higher maximum than section 5. It requires the intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a specific victim. This can usually be proved where there is evidence of specific, directed abuse...
However, it is important to remember that proving the defendant’s intent is not enough. There must also be evidence of somebody (which need not be the person targeted) suffering actual harassment, alarm or distress as a result. The evidence of this could come from that person themselves or it could come from another witness who can say that the person displayed signs of harassment, alarm or distress. As the effect on the victim is an essential element of the offence, prosecutors should not presume that it had that effect but should seek evidence which is capable of proving it."
The are entitled to use the definition you quoted for their internal flagging and reporting purposes, which is what they do in the extract you posted. It's also the case that there is no criminal offence of "hate crime" for there to be a definition of. The CPS categorise, for their own purposes, a number of crimes under that heading. Offenses can be racially aggravated etc. but that's not the same thing
Just accept you're wrong, apologise, and we can move on.
No, I won't apologise for being right. Admittedly I carry some of the blame for pointing you to the statue by which using words alone could constitute an offence, but that is a separate issue from the definition of a hate crime. In this both the legislation, and the CPS's interpretation is clear that intent doesn't matter, only whether the offender "demonstrates hostility" based on a protected characteristic.
Why do you think the CPS state this explicitly if you think they agree with you?
I've already explained that to you. It's used for internal reporting purposes.
The Police and the CPS don't get to define what a crime is. Only Parliament and the courts can do that. As the CPS themselves admit in the one paragraph you cling onto with such desperation, the ",,, police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes...". Below is what "flagging" means -
"Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes. Therefore, whilst not all flagged cases will result in specific racially or religiously aggravated charges or an application for an uplift of sentence under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 [‘s.66 SA 2020’] (which applies to all convictions on or after 1st December 2020), they should still be flagged on CMS."
You also bafflingly say " In this both the legislation, and the CPS's interpretation...". What legislation uses this definition?
Look, we are all wrong sometimes, accept it and you'll sleep easier. I'll pass on the apology even though it would be nice. But you have got this one wrong. I'm sure you're right about everything else.
F1: got to say I think it's nuts that Russell didn't either get a penalty or receive exoneration for the DRS infringement during the race. If it opens when he's a day and a half behind Piastri, it's an illegitimate advantage.
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
And that's before we even start on Reform....
Oh for sure. Reform will be just as bad
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
Gosh you are a boring and unpleasant old geezer.
You appear to be new here.
What are your hobbies? Do you have a dog?
More importantly....
1) Is pineapple on pizza an acceptable topping
2) Are Radiohead a fantastic live band, especially when they play at Glastonbury
An incredible stat here. Someone has done IQ estimates of the “Swedish elite”
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
We already have a term. We are ruled by Oxbridge graduates.
Quite so
The utter mediocrity of David Cameron and Geo Osborne is quite the case study, of this
Odd that you should single out Dave and George. Their regime - during which the greatest political controversy concerned extending VAT to pasties - seems a relative golden age compared to that which Oxford graduates Boris, Liz and Rishi were soon to unleash.
I disagree. Cameron and Osborne unleashed it all with a very ill-conceived EU Referendum. Everything since springs from that; it's on them.
Comments
I’ll help. It will probably either be the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or the Public Order Act 1986. But I can’t see it in either of those. Funny that…
I’m not sure.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A
Oh, and I looked back at my post to you about equal pay that you are still inexplicably offended by. I mean, FFS…grow up.
A couple of decades ago a policemen warning people to calm down and stop winding each other up would both go unremarked outside the handful of witnesses, and be regarded as good proactive policing.
The whole issue comes down to defining what actually ‘hating’ means. It seems somewhat opaque. As the witless plod says in this video some people may perceive it that way.
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Besides, what's the mechanism that stops him having another go?
Saying "speak English" is obviously not a crime.
So if it is perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice (and it may well be) it still isn't a hate crime.
It has to be a crime in the first place.
EDIT I see RCS beat me to it.
Hope you’ve found peace as when you flounced the once you seemed to have some issues you’re dealing with. As unpleasant a person as you are on here I do not wish you any ill as I said at the time.
Have a nice day.
“ person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress…”
So the offender has to have a mens rea. If there was no intent then there is no crime. The victim’s perception doesn’t come into it unless there was intent.
My real,hope is reading on Twitter from people in the US investment community is the talk that Navarro and Lutnick have been sidelined in favour of Bessent.
To be fair, provocation has always played a role in politics to an extent and now you don't need mobs on the street, all you need are camera phones, an absence of context and a sense of grievance.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5168193/#Comment_5168193
Sweet Jesus the Stupidity on PB is incredible
We are still sticking to 220 pounds at 6ft 3"...what are his bones made of? Air?
That will leave only Christopher Luxon as a Prime Minister from the conservative side of the street in the CANZUK group of countries.
Should the whole area of hate crimes be scrapped? Absolutely: ultimately, a crime is a crime.
But is that video representative of what @williamglenn wrote? And is the reality that people are being convicted for saying things like "speak English"?
No, of course not.
They shouldn't ever go around saying things like "might" or "percieve".
They could probably say something like "calm down, sir", and "we wouldn't want anything approaching breach of the peace, would we sir?"
But plod definitely should not have said what they said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/11/new-zealand-opinion-polls-christoper-luxon-popularity-rating-low?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Economic doldrums and net emigration of NZ citizens is not a good combination electorally
I thought it would be difficult to top Farage but step forward Andrew Griffith who is apparently the Shadow Business Secreatary and illustrates the wealth of talent on the Conservative benches when he claimed, in a sign of clear Conservative panic and desperation, the Liberal Democrats were "extremists" who "promote veganism".
Seriously?
Asked whether Ukraine “should be willing to compromise on Crimea”, Farage replied: “That’s at the heart of it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/farage-accused-of-parroting-putin-for-suggesting-ukraine-give-up-crimea-for-peace_uk_67fbc738e4b06646ea60a8b8
Democracy is doomed and we are governed by weak Woke morons. I feel slightly sorry for the coppers that have to enforce this lunacy, but then they are stupid fat fucks, as well
The next NZ election isn't due until October 2026 so that's an eternity away.
So your point is?
I don’t usually like terms like crazy but in the case of Navarro…..
The only other player I give a chance to is Aberg. He needs a 65/66 and for Rory and Bryson to get too involved with each other. 42 on Betfair is value imo.
Let's look at what Billy said -
"The definition of a hate crime in law depends on the victim's perception, so in effect he was saying that." ("he" being the author of a Tweet that said "British police warn an elderly, partially-deaf man that saying "speak English" is a hate crime.")
In my view, William was suggesting that simply saying "speak English", without intent, could be a hate crime based solely on the perception of complainant. I was saying that is not true. The definition of a crime under section 4A (the section he is relying on) is indeed partially, dependent on the perception of the victim, much like common assault, but the perception of the accused is just as important.
Most criminal offenses require two elements. A mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act).
In this offence the accused has to have (1) intended to causes harassment (mens rea) and (2) actually causes harassment (actus reus) by using the type of language stated. If he didn't intend to cause distress, but did, then there is no offence. William was suggesting the opposite.
The provision is similar to assault under the common law in that it requires a victim "to fear immediate unlawful violence". In both, the perception of the victim is only part of the actus reus in making out the offence (the other being the actual words used) and hat is not the whole offence, as William (in context) was suggesting.
Further, the accused has a defence if what he was saying was "reasonable".
So, as I say, it is the perception/intent of the accused that is key in making out the offence as much as the perception.
I hope that helps.
Look at the political class. The PARLIAMENTARIANS barely edge over IQ 110. THEY ARE 115 tops. That means quintessential midwits like @kinabalu and @IanB2 are running Sweden. People who should be running second hand bookshops or amateur ballet classes are running entire countries. Hence, perhaps, Sweden’s many modern problems, many of them entirely avoidable if you’re not governed by mediocrities
I am pretty sure we would find the same in the UK. I adduce David Lammy, Jess Philips and Ed Miliband as probative evidence
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1719842701229560092?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
We need a new word for this phenomenon. Government by the averagely dim
The Tories and LDs, indeed, all parties, are equally stuffed with these twats. It is not a partisan thing
Turning Point UK (TPUK) is a British offshoot of the American student pressure group Turning Point USA.[1] The UK group was set up to promote right-wing politics in UK schools, colleges and universities, with the stated aim of countering what Turning Point UK alleges are the left-wing politics of UK educational institutions.[2] The close similarity of Turning Point UK's rhetoric and target demographic to that of Generation Identity, a continental European group with racist and Islamophobic intentions, has been noted by scholars of hate studies and the far-right.[3]
Turning Point UK describes its objectives as promoting "the values of free markets, limited government and personal responsibility". It says it does this to counter what it alleges is "a dogmatic left-wing political climate, education system and radical Labour Party" which, Turning Point UK states, "sympathises with terrorists [and] wishes to disarm the nation".[4]
The group was launched in December 2018[5] by Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, and Candace Owens, then the communications director of the US group,[6] at the Royal Automobile Club in London.[5] On the day of its social media launch in February 2019, some Conservative MPs including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel tweeted supportive messages for the group.[7][8] Labour MP David Lammy stated that the launch and its Tory support were evidence that the Conservative Party "openly promotes hard-right, xenophobic bile".[9] From its inception, the organisation and its leading members were the subject of widespread popular ridicule. It was described by the BBC as "a tsunami of online mockery".[10][11]
He was also given the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and scored 30 out of 30, said the memo.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9vx1v1rx1o
Was his answer to every question, tariffs?
Spencer Hakimian
@SpencerHakimian
Since *Wednesday*:
We have had:
- Universal “reciprocal tariffs”
- A removal back down to 10%
- 50% Chinese tariffs
- 90% Chinese tariffs
- 104% Chinese tariffs
- 125% Chinese tariffs
- 145% Chinese tariffs
- Electronics exempted
- Electronics now potentially back on.
If you were a CFO of a Fortune 500 company, would you approve any new investment in a country this unstable?
Answer honestly.
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1911442866259230877
The intitial point of contention was whether the policeman had said that saying "Speak English" was a hate crime which was disputed because he only said that it could be perceived as a hate crime. My point was that this amounts to the same thing because the test of whether or not something constitutes a hate crime (assuming that a crime has been committed) doesn't depend on the offender's intent.
So, 30/30 would be a surprise for a healthy, non-impaired man. The only possible explanation can be that Trump is a super-genius. They can’t possibly just be making this stuff up.
I know Jimmy Wales. No joke. I do (it’s a long story, he lives in the UK)
He laments that it has been hijacked by a cabal of left wing editors who have turned it into a pathetic shadow of what it was. Almost any contentious political/religious topic is now a biased screed of Woke gibberish, rigorously fenced off from more sensible editing
Sad. Enshittification of Wiki can be added to the many other Enshittifications
LAB: 25.0% (+0.1)
REF: 24.5% (-1.6)
CON: 22.4% (+0.6)
LDM: 13.2% (+0.3)
GRN: 8.5% (+0.3)
SNP: 2.6% (=)
LAB lead REF by 0.5pp (+1.7)
(Changes with Feb)
https://x.com/OprosUK/status/1911453224785133862
I missed the Turning Point UK watermark. Obviously they are who they are.
Looking more closely, it's a stand promoting Reform UK in the Market Place in Wisbech. It geolocates to here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gRyBi5xvv3UXpcG58
It's also worth a note that the Twitter feed posting it - @BenonWine - self identifies as a "conservative patriot", has (imo - thinking of OGH) something of a record of posting race-baiting material *, and is trying to set himself up as a martyr due to disciplinary action at work related to his social media output.
* eg He posted this today, which is stirring up prejudice against Muslims, is from 2014, and was likely imo false flag shit-stirring even then.
Link: https://x.com/benonwine/status/1911434496978583816
As I said, this is not a partisan point. Government in ALL democracies now attracts mediocre idiots and utterly midbrow cranks. @IanB2 and @kinabalu in short. Pathetic retired accountants. People with only one friend, a dog. Sad people
Donald Trump is an example from the Right
It wasn’t always thus. I’m not sure what the solution is. Pay MPs a million quid a year?
"Section 4A carries a higher maximum than section 5. It requires the intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a specific victim. This can usually be proved where there is evidence of specific, directed abuse...
However, it is important to remember that proving the defendant’s intent is not enough. There must also be evidence of somebody (which need not be the person targeted) suffering actual harassment, alarm or distress as a result. The evidence of this could come from that person themselves or it could come from another witness who can say that the person displayed signs of harassment, alarm or distress. As the effect on the victim is an essential element of the offence, prosecutors should not presume that it had that effect but should seek evidence which is capable of proving it."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
The are entitled to use the definition you quoted for their internal flagging and reporting purposes, which is what they do in the extract you posted. It's also the case that there is no criminal offence of "hate crime" for there to be a definition of. The CPS categorise, for their own purposes, a number of crimes under that heading. Offenses can be racially aggravated etc. but that's not the same thing
Just accept you're wrong, apologise, and we can move on.
Quite so
The utter mediocrity of David Cameron and Geo Osborne is quite the case study, of this
Person B says "Speak English".
Person B is being offensive, and is motivated by racism.
Why do you think the CPS state this explicitly if you think they agree with you?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime
And on that somewhat depressing note, I am off to watch White Lotus Season 3, which is genuinely fun - and well-made
Enough said.
https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/healthcare/public-health/2024/01/austerity-deaths-david-cameron-government-one-million
What are your hobbies? Do you have a dog?
He then lost that referendum, and had to resign. Outfoxed by Boris and Farage. And that is all he will be known for. Losing an unloseable plebiscite that changed British history in a way he desperately didn’t want
And he’s your example of a gifted politician?
The danger isn't governments doing stupid shit. Governments do stupid shit all the time (98% tax rates, anyone?), it's the getting rid of the systems of democracy because they are inconvenient to you.
Lab 29.8%
Reform - Does Not Exist
Con 46.4%
LD 27.6%
Grn 22.9%
SNP 2.6%
Just a bit of fun...
The Police and the CPS don't get to define what a crime is. Only Parliament and the courts can do that. As the CPS themselves admit in the one paragraph you cling onto with such desperation, the ",,, police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes...". Below is what "flagging" means -
"Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes. Therefore, whilst not all flagged cases will result in specific racially or religiously aggravated charges or an application for an uplift of sentence under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 [‘s.66 SA 2020’] (which applies to all convictions on or after 1st December 2020), they should still be flagged on CMS."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
You also bafflingly say " In this both the legislation, and the CPS's interpretation...". What legislation uses this definition?
Look, we are all wrong sometimes, accept it and you'll sleep easier. I'll pass on the apology even though it would be nice. But you have got this one wrong. I'm sure you're right about everything else.
1) Is pineapple on pizza an acceptable topping
2) Are Radiohead a fantastic live band, especially when they play at Glastonbury
3) Is Die Hard a Christmas film.