Discussion
ED209 said:
Whilst his comment was inappropriate and out of order I honestly cannot see how anyone decided it amounted to an offence if that was all that was said.
I think there is probably more to this than is being reported, either that or the cops or CPS have messed up. All racial charges have to be authorised by the CPS anyway so they must have had sight of the evidence before he was actually charged a long time before the case was dropped.
There must be a realistic prospect of conviction and prosecution must be in the public interest-neither likely in this case - aslong as theres no more to it than reportedI think there is probably more to this than is being reported, either that or the cops or CPS have messed up. All racial charges have to be authorised by the CPS anyway so they must have had sight of the evidence before he was actually charged a long time before the case was dropped.
If we arrested everyone for racist comments, I expect the police would run out of holding cells rather quickly..
I feel sorry for Plod in these cases, I'm sure they would rather be doing better things than investigate 'he said something and hurt my feelings', but they are duty bound to do so if called.
I feel sorry for Plod in these cases, I'm sure they would rather be doing better things than investigate 'he said something and hurt my feelings', but they are duty bound to do so if called.
Edited by TankRizzo on Monday 27th October 21:58
Nigel Worc's said:
He's implying that people from those times are racist, and I think he's wrong, we just had more choice regarding who and where.
I don't recall it being an issue, one of my grandmothers lived in an area called "Small Heath" in Birmingham, a very black area even when I was a boy, like I said, I don't remember any issues, I don't even remember anyone even commenting.
You must have missed Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech then...I don't recall it being an issue, one of my grandmothers lived in an area called "Small Heath" in Birmingham, a very black area even when I was a boy, like I said, I don't remember any issues, I don't even remember anyone even commenting.
It'd be a bit odd, for sure - sat in a meeting room discussing the product road-map for Q1 2015, then apropos of nothing "KILL THE INFIDEL!"
What do you say, at that point?
Anyway, it's not happened yet - to be honest I hadn't thought of it as a possibility, but now that Nigel has warned me that it's bound to happen I'll make sure to be prepared.
What do you say, at that point?
Anyway, it's not happened yet - to be honest I hadn't thought of it as a possibility, but now that Nigel has warned me that it's bound to happen I'll make sure to be prepared.
king moron as the guy in the article. Bravo.
Magog said:
Nigel Worc's said:
He's implying that people from those times are racist, and I think he's wrong, we just had more choice regarding who and where.
I don't recall it being an issue, one of my grandmothers lived in an area called "Small Heath" in Birmingham, a very black area even when I was a boy, like I said, I don't remember any issues, I don't even remember anyone even commenting.
You must have missed Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech then...I don't recall it being an issue, one of my grandmothers lived in an area called "Small Heath" in Birmingham, a very black area even when I was a boy, like I said, I don't remember any issues, I don't even remember anyone even commenting.
I grew up largely in inner city brum, I never saw or experienced any racial issues, by the time the riots happened in the 80's, I was away with the RAF, and had been for a few years.
Seeing Jim Davidsons "chalky" written did bring a smile to my face though, there was a black recruit on my intake (you didn't see many black people in the RAF, I remember him and one Asian Officer I met years later, he was destined to be RAF Regt), and that's what he was known as, I can't even remember his name, never saw him again once we'd passed out, nice lad, he was from brum too.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Bigends said:
Ok..If he intended the guard to be alarmed or distressed by his comments which were directed at him
....or is aware that he might beIt's a wonder these people can tie their own shoelaces and go out in the dark.
Edited by 9mm on Monday 27th October 22:30
I can't believe people are defending him. He made an obviously offensive comment in front of (I imagine) Muslim guard and got what he deserves. If we are gunna string the Islamic extremists up for burning poppies, dressing as suicide bombers and preaching their nasty opinion then we must hold ourselves accountable to the same standards we hold them to. How are people not understanding this!?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and each situation is different. I can however see how someone might take offence to the words used by the man in the OP. If you look into what the underlying meaning of his comment might have been, and what he may have been suggesting, I can completely understand someone being offended.
Unfortunately it's a thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I dont agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't acceptable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
Unfortunately it's a thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I dont agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't acceptable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
Mk3Spitfire said:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and each situation is different. I can however see how someone might take offence to the words used by the man in the OP. If you look into what the underlying meaning of his comment might have been, and what he may have been suggesting, I can completely understand someone being offended.
Unfortunately it's s thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I hint agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't scveltable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
Well said! The past is irrelevant. These laws and regulations were instigated to allow us to lock up and deport those people holding nasty racist ignorant views. OAP offered his nasty racist ignorant view and... Nearly got locked up. HOW DARE THEY!? Unfortunately it's s thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I hint agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't scveltable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
Andehh said:
I can't believe people are defending him. He made an obviously offensive comment in front of (I imagine) Muslim guard and got what he deserves. If we are gunna string the Islamic extremists up for burning poppies, dressing as suicide bombers and preaching their nasty opinion then we must hold ourselves accountable to the same standards we hold them to. How are people not understanding this!?
Do you honestly think a comment about not being a muslim in response to being asked to remove your shoes is in the same league as burning a poppy or dressing as a suicide bomber?Mk3Spitfire said:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and each situation is different. I can however see how someone might take offence to the words used by the man in the OP. If you look into what the underlying meaning of his comment might have been, and what he may have been suggesting, I can completely understand someone being offended.
Unfortunately it's a thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I dont agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't acceptable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
Since when did it become illegal to offend someone?Unfortunately it's a thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I dont agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't acceptable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
Mk3Spitfire said:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and each situation is different. I can however see how someone might take offence to the words used by the man in the OP. If you look into what the underlying meaning of his comment might have been, and what he may have been suggesting, I can completely understand someone being offended.
Unfortunately it's a thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I dont agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't acceptable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
Since when did it become illegal to offend someone?Unfortunately it's a thin line between freedom of speech, and criminal and indeed civil offences.
I dont agree with the argument of "it was acceptable xx years ago". It isn't acceptable now, and people should be accountable for their actions in "the now".
9mm said:
Do you honestly think a comment about not being a muslim in response to being asked to remove your shoes is in the same league as burning a poppy or dressing as a suicide bomber?
Do you honestly not believe otherwise? What do they all have in common?1) They are all opinions
2) all are distasteful to "some"
3) none hurt anyone directly
4) all are done to cause offense
5) all are done to get a reaction
6) all are ignorant, narrow minded statements
7) none should be publicly defended
So why should we treat them differently? OAP directly and obviously publicly insinuated Muslims are all would bombers, mass murders. If I was a Muslim I'd be deeply offended, especially if I (as the vaaaaast majority do) find the extremists & terrorists as awful and deplorable ad the rest of us.
Christ guys, all I'm saying is we all need to be held accountable to the same standards. We can't have one law for "them" and one set of laws for "us".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff