Thought police slapped down.

Does this ruling set an actual legal precedent, or is it just a warning to the police?
The law itself is not under discussion but the judge ruled that the complainant's comments did not constitute a hate incident and that the Humberside Police's response was wholly disproportionate and wrong given that the posts were not offensive.
 
The congenital idiot who harassed Mr Miller said:

According to court papers, the constable explained to him: 'Sometimes, a woman's brain grows a man's body in the womb and that is what transgender is.'

Where on earth do they unearth these half-wits?
 
The congenital idiot who harassed Mr Miller said:

According to court papers, the constable explained to him: 'Sometimes, a woman's brain grows a man's body in the womb and that is what transgender is.'

Where on earth do they unearth these half-wits?
I believe that's probably the textbook answer in a gender studies degree.
 

Dredd

LE
The main issue here (for me) is the automatic recording of a Non-Crime Hate incident.

For example, I could report one of your (fully justified) posts railing against some of the more strident Trans community. Even if the police investigate and find no crime, it would be recorded (against you) as a Non-Crime Hate incident. There is no option of telling the complainant to do one, it's either a hate crime or a non crime hate incident.

There needs to be an option to dismiss the complaint as well, perhaps recording it as such.
Which could then lead to serial complainers being charged with wasting police time.
 

bedended

War Hero
Finally, a glimmer of common sense from the judiciary. I imagine the specimen that lodged the complaint has been totally freaked out by the decision.
Morning @Roti,
I'd 'Pay per view' to see that meltdown and the ensuing gnashing of teeth from various quarters. Shirley something filmed it?..."and don't call me...".
 
I believe that's probably the textbook answer in a gender studies degree.
...but it's a grossly transphobic statement, and one that needs to be recorded as a hate crime.

He/she/it (the use of 'it' used solely to encompass 'non-identifiers') should have balanced his/her/its (the use of 'it' used solely to encompass 'non-identifiers') statement by also saying that 'sometimes a man's brain grows a woman's body in the womb' and sometimes a gender-free brain grows a gender-free body in the womb'.

In addition, he/she/it (the use of 'it' used solely to encompass 'non-identifiers') has also discriminated against those grown in test tubes; and those who are born to 'woman's brains in man's body' types who don't have a womb but still miraculously manage to give birth.

It seems to be one rule for the police and one for the rest of us.
 
As much as I would like to say hooray for common sense, this will only enrage the idiots to try and get this overturned and try to enforce any criticism of anything to be classified as a crime..this isn't the end, it is just getting started.
 
Good news for free speech.



I saw this briefly & thought, thank god (other deities/fictional fairies are available), a glimmer of common sense from our normally ultra "woke" judiciary, who over the last several decades normally bend over backwards to be pc mainly in order not to offend certain ethnic minorities who have flooded in.
Totally forgetting the old "when in Rome (do as the Romans do)"
 

TamtamPWRR

War Hero
Wasn't it Harriet Harman that stated on TV there is no right to not be offended?
Thats the one, and to be fair she's right. Neither of us would be particularly happy about a neo Nazi waving a Swastika, but they have the right to do so. I don't particularly like Graham Linehan's views on me, or Harry Millers, but their right to offend me also protects me and allows me to say things that they disagree with. Harry is fully within his rights to say that he doesn't think Trans women are women, where the limit is is when he or I start referring to each other as police scum or Tranny freaks or advocating serious discrimination and violence against each other.
 

doc80905

War Hero
Seems to me to be more of a slap-down for the police, but a very significant one. Effectively the judge told the police that they were not allowed to be thought police; recording a 'hate incident' without any crime is unjust; people are allowed to express their views (notwithstanding incitement to violence etc); visiting him at his workplace was disproportionate.
This. The whole "you haven't committed a crime but we'd like to have a chat with you about your views" is ridiculous. The Police, whilst some of them might think they are, are not there to regulate the publics thoughts and beliefs. There's enough proper crime out there without diverting scarce resources to non crime.
 
A very significant, and just, ruling for free speech. IMO, attempts have been made to close down all speech that does not conform to a narrow and minority agenda. This ruling effectively means that one can say 'the emperor has no clothes'.
The problem is that the lines are being eroded. Any sensible person knows what constitutes (or should constitute) a hate crime. It is defined and covered by law. The police seem to think that the law is not good enough and that there should be an additional intermediate level known as a 'non-crime hate incident'. This of course can mean absolutely anything at all and will be dependent on the perceptions of any third party.

The primary complainant (or a third party) can be mistaken, over-sensitive, prompted by a number of motivations not germane to the actual complaint, motivated personally or politically etc. etc. The possible justification for the complaint is not set in law or defined by the law. It is a para-legal concoction based almost entirely on an untested (and untestable) perception of a complainant.

The consequences for a person complained against will not result in a criminal conviction, per se, but nevertheless share certain similarities.

It is a revolting concept and one that needs quickly to be nipped in the bud. If the law is not up to the job, then change the law in so that it is. This is just a charter for moaners, malcontents, the mischievous, the politically motivated and the professionally offended.... and for lazy (and over-intrusive) policing.
 
The congenital idiot who harassed Mr Miller said:

According to court papers, the constable explained to him: 'Sometimes, a woman's brain grows a man's body in the womb and that is what transgender is.'

Where on earth do they unearth these half-wits?
These 'half wits' came from the furnace in which brave men and women are forged, and the anvils on which their characters are tempered. These are Social Justice Warriors on the front line of the battle for transgender and fat acceptance.
 
Police are required by law to record any hate incident or crime. There are 5 mandatory protected characteristics - religion,disability,gender...etc. Forces can also include others such as...being a goth for example. If ANY person, be it the so called victim, or an onlooker deems a hate crime/incident to have occurred and report it, police are required by home office counting rules to record it. If Jarrod called the police and said “a bloke in town barged past me today...I think he did it because I’m gay”...police have no option but to record as either hate crime or incident. If an onlooker saw a bloke barge past an Asian on an escalator during rush hour, and reported he thought he was barged past because he was Asian...it has to be recorded.
This goes some way to explaining why the crime statistics, bbc type “hate crime has increased 20% since...” often appear to make out the UK is a stormfront enclave.

@Provost police don’t decide ...it’s a home office directive.
 
How mant tranny threads do we need?

Catching up with the Brexit threads FFS!
I bet you wouldn't complain if there were pictures, you deviant. :p
 
The problem is that the lines are being eroded. Any sensible person knows what constitutes (or should constitute) a hate crime. It is defined and covered by law. The police seem to think that the law is not good enough and that there should be an additional intermediate level known as a 'non-crime hate incident'. This of course can mean absolutely anything at all and will be dependent on the perceptions of any third party.

The primary complainant (or a third party) can be mistaken, over-sensitive, prompted by a number of motivations not germane to the actual complaint, motivated personally or politically etc. etc. The possible justification for the complaint is not set in law or defined by the law. It is a para-legal concoction based almost entirely on an untested (and untestable) perception of a complainant.

The consequences for a person complained against will not result in a criminal conviction, per se, but nevertheless share certain similarities.

It is a revolting concept and one that needs quickly to be nipped in the bud. If the law is not up to the job, then change the law in so that it is. This is just a charter for moaners, malcontents, the mischievous, the politically motivated and the professionally offended.... and for lazy (and over-intrusive) policing.
The police have completely lost their way and are fast becoming the enemy of liberty.
 

Latest Threads

Top