The Rise of the Centrist

Boris_Johnson

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
This pointless back and forth isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Nobody is "winning".

Simple solution - try posting without quoting anyone.

If you've made your point with someone and that someone has already decided they're not listening - move on. By continually quoting each other you alienate the rest of the readership. Moreover you continue to "platform" your opposition to recite their own stubborn rhetoric.
 
This pointless back and forth isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Nobody is "winning".

Simple solution - try posting without quoting anyone.

If you've made your point with someone and that someone has already decided they're not listening - move on. By continually quoting each other you alienate the rest of the readership. Moreover you continue to "platform" your opposition to recite their own stubborn rhetoric.

Can't we at least wait until one of them goes "See that Eddie the Eagle Edward's that's you that is, that's your mum"
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
This pointless back and forth isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Nobody is "winning".

Simple solution - try posting without quoting anyone.

If you've made your point with someone and that someone has already decided they're not listening - move on. By continually quoting each other you alienate the rest of the readership. Moreover you continue to "platform" your opposition to recite their own stubborn rhetoric.

Without endorsing either side in the local squabble, I remember one of the 2000s-vintage police blogs (wasn't Nightjack, the author ended up going overseas) describing how the implementation of "hate crime" legislation didn't reduce people being EDITED TO BE "Getifa y'Barsas" to each other even slightly - instead it led to an arms race of weaponised victimhood where any altercation that ended up getting police attention became a race to get the claim of "they're being nasty to me because I is <insert tenuous claim to protected characteristic>" in first.

Which is not a reason to fail to protect folk being picked on because of their nationality or origin, their skin colour, who they do or don't want to have sex with, what sky pixies they do or don't talk to, the current contents of their underpants, or any other issue - but do we really want to get into the sort of hierarchy of "but one side say their Holy Book Dictated By God says to kill all the gayers, the other side are gayers but some of them are a bit dark, who's allowed to be EDITED TO BE "Getifa y'Barsas" to who?"
 
Last edited:

Boris_Johnson

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
I agree with your point... There has been a big push lately from the Police (and I dare say it's most likely one of those policies forced upon them) to encourage the reporting of "hate crimes".

I keep up with the local news snippets on FB and around a year ago there were a number of these campaigns.

Imagine my shock when an article was posted only a few days ago by the local rag on FB "concerned" about the rise in hate crimes...

I was going to chip in with a smart comment about "police encourage reporting of hate crimes concerned about rise in hate crime reporting shocker!"... But I thought better of it and left the commies and closet EDL hoi polloi to argue amongst themselves instead.

 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Without endorsing either side in the local squabble, I remember one of the 2000s-vintage police blogs (wasn't Nightjack, the author ended up going overseas) describing how the implementation of "hate crime" legislation didn't reduce people being cnuts to each other even slightly - instead it led to an arms race of weaponised victimhood where any altercation that ended up getting police attention became a race to get the claim of "they're being nasty to me because I is <insert tenuous claim to protected characteristic>" in first.

Which is not a reason to fail to protect folk being picked on because of their nationality or origin, their skin colour, who they do or don't want to have sex with, what sky pixies they do or don't talk to, the current contents of their underpants, or any other issue - but do we really want to get into the sort of hierarchy of "but one side say their Holy Book Dictated By God says to kill all the gayers, the other side are gayers but some of them are a bit dark, who's allowed to be cnuts to who?"
I have a couple of issues with hate crime legislation.

The first is that all of the offences it covers could already have been dealt with robustly under existing laws... whether they were or not is a different matter.

The second, and this to me is really important, is that we are all equal before the law.

I'll use the murder of a gay man in London from some years ago as an example. The two men who did it were convicted of murder and got life sentences. They were then given additional years for a hate crime (obviously, in this case, homophobia).

The murder itself was bad enough and the reasons for the murder should have been taken into account in the sentencing. But hate crime legislation dictated that more be added.

If the victim hadn't been gay, would the sentence therefore have been lighter?

That is not right. In such circumstances, each life should be of equal value and sentencing should be in accordance.

'Hate crime' undermines a fundamental of our system of law.
 
I have a couple of issues with hate crime legislation.

The first is that all of the offences it covers could already have been dealt with robustly under existing laws... whether they were or not is a different matter.

The second, and this to me is really important, is that we are all equal before the law.

I'll use the murder of a gay man in London from some years ago as an example. The two men who did it were convicted of murder and got life sentences. They were then given additional years for a hate crime (obviously, in this case, homophobia).

The murder itself was bad enough and the reasons for the murder should have been taken into account in the sentencing. But hate crime legislation dictated that more be added.

If the victim hadn't been gay, would the sentence therefore have been lighter?

That is not right. In such circumstances, each life should be of equal value and sentencing should be in accordance.

'Hate crime' undermines a fundamental of our system of law.

In a similar vein, the murder of an MP is front and centre for the next couple of days. Same day a 14 year old lad was stabbed to death in Glasgow.
Don't they both deserve equality?
 
Without endorsing either side in the local squabble, I remember one of the 2000s-vintage police blogs (wasn't Nightjack, the author ended up going overseas) describing how the implementation of "hate crime" legislation didn't reduce people being cnuts to each other even slightly - instead it led to an arms race of weaponised victimhood where any altercation that ended up getting police attention became a race to get the claim of "they're being nasty to me because I is <insert tenuous claim to protected characteristic>" in first.

Which is not a reason to fail to protect folk being picked on because of their nationality or origin, their skin colour, who they do or don't want to have sex with, what sky pixies they do or don't talk to, the current contents of their underpants, or any other issue - but do we really want to get into the sort of hierarchy of "but one side say their Holy Book Dictated By God says to kill all the gayers, the other side are gayers but some of them are a bit dark, who's allowed to be cnuts to who?"

Quite topical really, given the Home Office apparently wanting to crack down on social media anonymity.

Which I assume would have the happen coincidence of shutting up awkward anonymous blogs (like Nightjack


or PC David Cooperfield (author of Wasting Police Time).

I'm sure that is merely collateral to the intent of our wise masters. Which is to keep us safe.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
In a similar vein, the murder of an MP is front and centre for the next couple of days. Same day a 14 year old lad was stabbed to death in Glasgow.
Don't they both deserve equality?
One or the other is always going to be(come) more newsworthy. That's just an unfortunate reality. It's the inequality of sentencing inline with a political motivation that gets me.
 
@jrwlynch I don't moderate CA but you might want to edit your last sentence.

I agree with your point though... There's been a big push lately from the Police (and I dare say it's most likely one of those policies forced upon them) to encourage the reporting of "hate crimes".

I keep up with the local news snippets on FB and around a year ago there were a number of these campaigns.

Imagine my shock when an article was posted only a few days ago by the local rag on FB "concerned" about the rise in hate crimes...

I was going to chip in with a smart comment about "police encourage reporting of hate crimes concerned about rise in hate crime reporting shocker!"... But I thought better of it and left the commies and closet EDL hoi polloi to argue amongst themselves instead.


Great way to deal with stats though.

You'd expect a raise in hate crime now, so getting everything a hate crime flag means there's less crime that people would pay attention to.

It's all in how you manage the statistics you see. No one ever got promoted for actual thief taking.
 

Tyk

LE
@Cold_Collation Fair points and like you I'm none to comfortable with hate crime legislation or even the language around "hate crimes".
To me it seems divisive and discriminatory in intent and in practice, as you rightly point out the actual crimes are already adequately covered by law.
It's too easy to abuse and pervert well meaning hate oriented legislation to interpret it to fit an agenda or make a victim of crime more of a victim.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
@jrwlynch I don't moderate CA but you might want to edit your last sentence.

I'd say it's a valid question within the discussion, albeit one deserving of a sensitive treatment and not easily answered.

If "being a EDITED TO BE "Getifa y'Barsa" to someone else" is going to get extra punishments for <reasons>, then how do those <reasons> compete and stack up against each other?

If I can prove that my "Rule Book From God" (or other justification as appropriate) says I'm not only allowed but required to be horrible to specific other groups, does that offer me protection? If not, can I not claim that I'm being discriminated against on the grounds of religion and prohibited from freely exercising my beliefs?

If I pre-emptively batter someone who I believe is a reader of said "Rule Book From God", because their book says they're required to kill me or persecute me on pain of eternal damnation if they don't, am I a bigot, or engaged in sensible self-defence? Or should I wait to see if they're determined true believers, or just ordinary people trying to get along despite what their Rule Book ostensibly says? (Have a read of the Bible and see just how horrible some of the rules in there are, like detailed descriptions of when it's allowed to rape your slave women... yet hardly anyone identifying as Christian would even know of those, let alone practice them)


Or should we simply focus on "thou shalt not be a EDITED TO BE "Getifa y'Barsa" to other people"? and try to treat each other decently?
 
Last edited:

Tyk

LE
I'd say it's a valid question within the discussion, albeit one deserving of a sensitive treatment and not easily answered.

If "being a cnut to someone else" is going to get extra punishments for <reasons>, then how do those <reasons> compete and stack up against each other?

If I can prove that my "Rule Book From God" (or other justification as appropriate) says I'm not only allowed but required to be horrible to specific other groups, does that offer me protection? If not, can I not claim that I'm being discriminated against on the grounds of religion and prohibited from freely exercising my beliefs?

If I pre-emptively batter someone who I believe is a reader of said "Rule Book From God", because their book says they're required to kill me or persecute me on pain of eternal damnation if they don't, am I a bigot, or engaged in sensible self-defence? Or should I wait to see if they're determined true believers, or just ordinary people trying to get along despite what their Rule Book ostensibly says? (Have a read of the Bible and see just how horrible some of the rules in there are, like detailed descriptions of when it's allowed to rape your slave women... yet hardly anyone identifying as Christian would even know of those, let alone practice them)


Or should we simply focus on "thou shalt not be a flange to other people"? and try to treat each other decently?

It's a fair question and the only rational answer has to be that persons are subject to the rule of law in the UK and arguments about my book/his book/your book should be totally discounted, certainly never entertained as an excuse or mitigating factor.
Your last paragraph should apply in all cases and where it isn't applied a crime of some flavour has occurred be it offensive behaviour, assault, destruction of property etc.
Which brings us back to the points about hate crimes and how they don't sit well, they're so subjective it's almost impossible to subject an accusation to a rational test.

@Boris_Johnson Interesting thread so long as you ignore a person trying to wibble all over it. Shame some people lack restraint.
 
Last edited:

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Can't say I didn't warn you...
I try to avoid using pointedly harsh language, unless there's a clear reason to emphasize a point.

We've got a filter for Bad Words, fair enough. If sidestepping it is a Really Awful Thing because the ARRSE audience will clutch their pearls and faint, fair enough, I can go back and edit the Bad Word into the Big Yin's "Getifa y'Barsa" (his own invented sweariness, when told he couldn't say the F-word).
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Can you show any screeching?

You don't want anyone to disagree and want your own disingenuous bad actors to be able to say what they want?

Cowardly? You seem to have a problem with free speech.

I don't generally bother about typos or spooling unless someone else brings it up.

To be clear, my initial post was in response to this:

And was to say that not seeing that the colour of a person is relevant if an attack is racially motivated is part of the problem. I've had lots of "yeah but, no buts" in reply but there's nothing which has addressed that. Is there?
To confect a perceived intolerance from a legitimate comment is a typical trolling tactic of the left.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Quite topical really, given the Home Office apparently wanting to crack down on social media anonymity.

Which I assume would have the happen coincidence of shutting up awkward anonymous blogs (like Nightjack


or PC David Cooperfield (author of Wasting Police Time).

I'm sure that is merely collateral to the intent of our wise masters. Which is to keep us safe.
I can perceive of a difference between social media anonymity and people posting unsubstantiated and damaging nonsense, and targeting a concerned individual who uses anonymity to expose that which can be corroborated.
 

Latest Threads

Top