Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

crashmonitor

Amber Rudd's speech logged as Hate Incident

Recommended Posts

This is rather worrying since I really am struggling to see where the Hate bit is. All she suggested is  that unskilled foreign labour is monitored to ensure indigenous people were not being made unemployed. Less explicit than Brown's British jobs for British workers.

Gosh if this is logged as a hate incident God help us on here.

The complainant, a University academic, couldn't even say where the hate bit came in on the Daily Poilitics today other than saying it was discrimination. Former Tory leader Michael Howard was meanwhile furious that the Academic should have raised this with the police. An abuse of the legal process, or something of that sort.

 

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/national/article/Police-log-speech-by-Home-Secretary-Amber-Rudd-as-hate-incident-2c203046-a302-4e51-bc5a-6b5999d437d9-ds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just posted a comment on the when will this madness stop thread about a particular sentence quoted from the plod:

 "Where any person, including police personnel, reports a hate incident which would not be the primary responsibility of another agency, it must be recorded regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element."

my response was the same as yours crashy, gawd help us all.  Madness, complete bonkers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit hateful against free speech - even free speech that doesn't include a scrap of hate in it and some would say merely a rational way of deploying labour.

One assumes that within the corporate sphere then any employee can say report some deployment proposals under that category now.  For instance some employer saying that foreign workers are in some way better/harder working.

Presumably it must come under some eu law/directive otherwise the UK government could simply repeal the relevant law.

British taxpayers have to pay for all this daft bureaucracy which must be wasting police time.  Apparently wasting police time used to be an offence - it probably still is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think charging people for 'Hate crime' is bad?

Just wait until they start going after you for 'Dislike mildly crimes' and then 'Ambivalent, but in an uneasy way crimes'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know how a hate crime differs from an ordinary crime. Do they just mean that there is a harrasment element? Why not just charge them with criminal harrasment? 

As I understand the law it is a hate crime to assault the disabled, women or goths but not the ugly, men or emos. Who identifies these protected groups and why are we dividing society up along identitarian grounds? It's a dangerous road to go down IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

I'd like to know how a hate crime differs from an ordinary crime. Do they just mean that there is a harrasment element? Why not just charge them with criminal harrasment? 

As I understand the law it is a hate crime to assault the disabled, women or goths but not the ugly, men or emos. Who identifies these protected groups and why are we dividing society up along identitarian grounds? It's a dangerous road to go down IMO.

It wasn't a hate crime for white kids to tell a white english woman to go back to where she came from, but it was to tell an asian man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there has been a very big hate crime conducted at an Institutional level by the BBC regarding labelling Trump and Leave supporters as uneducated, working class  white males. We have had kidnappings by black gangs in the US of said stereotypes in revenge.

This was done with complete impunity. change the gender and race and insert uneducated and the BBC would have lost its licence.

This law is gender and race specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

This law is gender and race specific.

This..  nobody is more obsessive about race, religion and ethnicity than the government, law makers and by extension the public services.

I don't think I've ever had to fill in a form for the private sector where I was asked to declare that I am a purple skinned Jedi of Peruvian descent.

There is no greater discrimination and obsession with identity pigeon holing more blatantly seen than by those who claim to oppose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worrying thing about these "Hate Crime" charges is that they usually carry a greatly inflated punishment i.e markedly longer prison sentences. 

Still, once people have had enough of all this **** they will just get smart and stay silent / ignore  certain types that they think will try on the spurious "Hate Crime" claims.

This is probably best policy, and then the pigeonholed groups will find themselves ignored in totality leading the exact opposite of what the government are trying to do.

There is no law saying you cannot stay silent in another persons presence, or just get up and walk out in silence.

Free country 'n all that ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=63&v=kw6yOOTY08U

Cucked old man looks like he's scared out of his wits. Very odd. He's also going for May. Oddly not Milliband or Brown.

The police have more than enough islamofacists and sjw's in made up departments to keep the likes of this professor going. Civilisation Jihad bought on by useful idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, libspero said:

This..  nobody is more obsessive about race, religion and ethnicity than the government, law makers and by extension the public services.

I don't think I've ever had to fill in a form for the private sector where I was asked to declare that I am a purple skinned Jedi of Peruvian descent.

There is no greater discrimination and obsession with identity pigeon holing more blatantly seen than by those who claim to oppose it.

I think the religious, by definition, are haters by default.  anyone not beleiving in their brand is condemned by their god.  yet these people get a free pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, workingpoor said:

The worrying thing about these "Hate Crime" charges is that they usually carry a greatly inflated punishment i.e markedly longer prison sentences. 

Still, once people have had enough of all this **** they will just get smart and stay silent / ignore  certain types that they think will try on the spurious "Hate Crime" claims.

This is probably best policy, and then the pigeonholed groups will find themselves ignored in totality leading the exact opposite of what the government are trying to do.

There is no law saying you cannot stay silent in another persons presence, or just get up and walk out in silence.

Free country 'n all that ?

 

Careful with that. Ignoring someone falls within the definition of harassment used by most public bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bloo Loo said:

I think the religious, by definition, are haters by default.  anyone not beleiving in their brand is condemned by their god.  yet these people get a free pass.

I dunno, wasn't there a few prosecutions ofreligious guesthouse owners who refused to rent a room to a gay couple?

And another where a cake was refused to be made? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, workingpoor said:

I dunno, wasn't there a few prosecutions ofreligious guesthouse owners who refused to rent a room to a gay couple?

And another where a cake was refused to be made? 

exactly, religious views excluding others.

My view is that these views are valid in a free society.  Nobody forced the gays to rent the room or order the cake. They could have rented or bought in myriad other places.  

In other words, the victims searched out those who they thought victimise.  Sounds familiar to the tactics of the Religion of Peace.

And in neither example was the issue about religion.  It was about what a religious person should reject.  If their comments was about another religion, then the free pass is granted..unless it was a christian that made the insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, during an interview on BBC2's Daily Politics, Prof Silver admitted he had not listened to Ms Rudd's speech, which did not include any reference to keeping lists of foreign workers.

Oh FFS.

It is also an offence to waste police time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   36 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.