Man who had not eaten or drunk for hours - crashes train !
Discussion
AJS- said:
The judge's comment seems to be that he risked stirring up racial hatred. Since the comments weren't published we don't know exactly how he did that but it isn't necessarily criticism of Islam or even of Muslims. Who are still not a race.
They may not be, it doesn't matter. If I call my Indian neighbour a "f*ing Hindu ****" or similar or start inciting hatred against Hindus you can be very sure that i will get done for a racial attack or inciting racist hatred. The spirit of the attack is racist just as it would be if I called him "n***r". "N***r" isn't a race either, you saying that's not a racist term?AJS- said:
The judge's comment seems to be that he risked stirring up racial hatred. Since the comments weren't published we don't know exactly how he did that but it isn't necessarily criticism of Islam or even of Muslims. Who are still not a race.
All offences under the same Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 though. Much like in this case - http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/17/mum-of-five-smashed-...AJS- said:
The judge's comment seems to be that he risked stirring up racial hatred. Since the comments weren't published we don't know exactly how he did that but it isn't necessarily criticism of Islam or even of Muslims. Who are still not a race.
You're right we don't have the transcript, but how do you explain the defence lawyers statement?We can do coulda, woulda, shoulda, but on the basis of the evidence, the case at the very least infers Islamophobia is racism.
“His mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslims, he gets on with them very well. He has insisted he does not have racist sympathies, he struggles to explain it."
Note, there is no reference in that para to "race".
Battered
It sounds like you would be engaging in religious hatred, but it may *incite* racial hatred against all Indians. Subtly but importantly different IMO.
Rscott
Yes. Racial *and* Religious. It sounds like she shouted *racial* abuse. Although the story itself doesn't make the distinction very clear.
Alpine
Explain what about the defence lawyers statement?
It does seem to infer that, but that doesn't make it so. I would imagine he either said something specific about a racial group or used generally derogatory terms, or perhaps white supremacist stuff which the judge felt may have incited others to hate certain *racial* groups.
It sounds like you would be engaging in religious hatred, but it may *incite* racial hatred against all Indians. Subtly but importantly different IMO.
Rscott
Yes. Racial *and* Religious. It sounds like she shouted *racial* abuse. Although the story itself doesn't make the distinction very clear.
Alpine
Explain what about the defence lawyers statement?
It does seem to infer that, but that doesn't make it so. I would imagine he either said something specific about a racial group or used generally derogatory terms, or perhaps white supremacist stuff which the judge felt may have incited others to hate certain *racial* groups.
AJS- said:
"He struggles to explain it."
I guess he resorted to idiotic memes or foul language and abuse.
He struggles to explain his racist tendencies, and the support for him not being racist is that his MIL and SIL are Muslims. It's not difficult. In isolation that para is absolutely definitive. What we are missing are the surrounding paragraphs, but until you supply them, explain why that para is not equating racism and religion. I guess he resorted to idiotic memes or foul language and abuse.
AJS- said:
Battered
It sounds like you would be engaging in religious hatred, but it may *incite* racial hatred against all Indians. Subtly but importantly different IMO.
You're splitting hairs to find a difference, and failing.It sounds like you would be engaging in religious hatred, but it may *incite* racial hatred against all Indians. Subtly but importantly different IMO.
The intent is the same.
The offense caused is the same.
The target of the abuse is clear.
It's covered by the same Act.
You can carry on with your IMO if you like, it doesn't wash.
IMO
Oh, and that of a court. Or two.
I don't see that as definitive at all Alpinestars. They are two separate statements. He gets on well with his Muslim family members. He does not have racist sympathies.
Battered
It's not splitting hairs at all. Race and religion are two entirely separate things.
To be clear, do you believe that criticism of Islam is racist? Any criticism? Some criticism? In some circumstances?
Battered
It's not splitting hairs at all. Race and religion are two entirely separate things.
To be clear, do you believe that criticism of Islam is racist? Any criticism? Some criticism? In some circumstances?
AJS- said:
I don't see that as definitive at all Alpinestars. They are two separate statements. He gets on well with his Muslim family members. He does not have racist sympathies.
Battered
It's not splitting hairs at all. Race and religion are two entirely separate things.
To be clear, do you believe that criticism of Islam is racist? Any criticism? Some criticism? In some circumstances?
Only you could see them as two distinct statements despite them being reported in the same para. One following the other, and one supporting the other. It's simple plain English. If the first couple of sentences were not supposed to support the last, they become irrelevant and superfluous. Bear in mind, a lawyer is using the words, not a layman. There's a reason he has constructed his paragraph in the way he did. Battered
It's not splitting hairs at all. Race and religion are two entirely separate things.
To be clear, do you believe that criticism of Islam is racist? Any criticism? Some criticism? In some circumstances?
You're just uncomfortable with the association of racism and Islamophobia.
AJS- said:
Lawyers also use sentences.
I am not "uncomfortable" with it. I believe the conflation of criticism of Islam with racism is wholly false.
Do you believe criticism of Islam is racist?
Depends on the context and voracity. I think never thinking bigotry about religion is racism is semantics. I am not "uncomfortable" with it. I believe the conflation of criticism of Islam with racism is wholly false.
Do you believe criticism of Islam is racist?
The judge and defence lawyer appear to conflate Islamophobia with racism. You may not, but the law might not support your position.
AJS- said:
Do you believe criticism of Islam is racist?
No I don't. Criticism is not abuse. Racism is abuse.It's about context and intent. If I intend to cause offence, and if I cause offence, then that's abuse. If I call my neighbour a (insert Muslim hate term) then in spite of the fact that he's a Hindu it's racist abuse if he feels it's racially motivated and directed at him.
It's like being nicked for possession of cannabis when the dealer actually sold you oxo cube. You intended to bug cannabis, you thought you had, so that's the crime right there.
Alpine
It is not semantics though. Race and religion are two entirely separate things.
Unless more comes out we will never know how the judge reached that verdict or why he framed his comments that way. But even if he, even if the entire legal system did make that mistake it is simply and objectively wrong because race is not religion and all this cynical campaign to conflate the two is doing s to diminish and devalue the very serious accusation of racism.
Battered
Is only abuse racist? Do you believe criticism of black people is racist?
You can have religious bigotry and you can have supremacism which deems all other beliefs as inferior and contemptible. But it still isn't racism.
In my view the horrible thing about racism, the thing which sets it apart as a particularly nasty form of bigotry, is that it denigrates people based on their actual physical being. Not beliefs or culture which are relatively superficial and can be changed. Simply on who you were born as.
If I say that France is a rubbish country, with a disastrous military history, an ineffective state and a puffed up sense of it's own importance then I am being chauvinistic, nationalistic, ignorant and sweeping. But not racist. A Frenchman might agree with me and move elsewhere. I am criticising a political construct, albeit in a crude manner.
If I say that Muslims are violent pedophiles who believe in transparent nonsense then I am being chauvinistic about a group of people, but again some Muslims may agree and choose not to be Muslim.
If I say that black people are inherently stupid and lazy then I am writing them off based solely on their race. Not on anything they believe. Not on anything they have chosen. I am denigrating their very worth as human beings because their racial background is utterly inseparable for their humanity. I am essentially dividing the human race into more and less valuable members.
Anyway it's drifted a long way from Ramadan train crashes...
It is not semantics though. Race and religion are two entirely separate things.
Unless more comes out we will never know how the judge reached that verdict or why he framed his comments that way. But even if he, even if the entire legal system did make that mistake it is simply and objectively wrong because race is not religion and all this cynical campaign to conflate the two is doing s to diminish and devalue the very serious accusation of racism.
Battered
Is only abuse racist? Do you believe criticism of black people is racist?
You can have religious bigotry and you can have supremacism which deems all other beliefs as inferior and contemptible. But it still isn't racism.
In my view the horrible thing about racism, the thing which sets it apart as a particularly nasty form of bigotry, is that it denigrates people based on their actual physical being. Not beliefs or culture which are relatively superficial and can be changed. Simply on who you were born as.
If I say that France is a rubbish country, with a disastrous military history, an ineffective state and a puffed up sense of it's own importance then I am being chauvinistic, nationalistic, ignorant and sweeping. But not racist. A Frenchman might agree with me and move elsewhere. I am criticising a political construct, albeit in a crude manner.
If I say that Muslims are violent pedophiles who believe in transparent nonsense then I am being chauvinistic about a group of people, but again some Muslims may agree and choose not to be Muslim.
If I say that black people are inherently stupid and lazy then I am writing them off based solely on their race. Not on anything they believe. Not on anything they have chosen. I am denigrating their very worth as human beings because their racial background is utterly inseparable for their humanity. I am essentially dividing the human race into more and less valuable members.
Anyway it's drifted a long way from Ramadan train crashes...
Not sure why you think there's a 'typical campaign' to conflate Islamaphobia and racism.
Attacks on other religions are also called racist attacks - eg http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-anti-semitism-raci...
Attacks on other religions are also called racist attacks - eg http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-anti-semitism-raci...
rscott said:
Not sure why you think there's a 'typical campaign' to conflate Islamaphobia and racism.
Attacks on other religions are also called racist attacks - eg http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-anti-semitism-raci...
This is where we will hear about Semites being a race. A great example of semantics. Attacks on other religions are also called racist attacks - eg http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-anti-semitism-raci...
And AJS knows better than the legal system. Who knew. One of your best own goals starting that thread.
Sheets Tabuer said:
Are people that affected by not eating, I can go for days without food and not notice any difference at all, certainly no dizziness or anything.
I did work in an airport once and we were putting in the hours and a guy I worked with who had not eaten by 9pm walked off the job because he said he couldn't concentrate and was feeling dizzy, He left us right in the s
t doing the SAN upgrade. I called bullst but wonder if there is something in it.
I get hangry after about 3hrs I did work in an airport once and we were putting in the hours and a guy I worked with who had not eaten by 9pm walked off the job because he said he couldn't concentrate and was feeling dizzy, He left us right in the s
t doing the SAN upgrade. I called bullst but wonder if there is something in it.
It most definitely is a factor. As someone who regularly rides such trains and was directly effected by this crash (it shut Paddington adding 4hrs and £30 to my journey home that evening) I think it needs to be looked at. It's recommended not to operate machinery when on certain medication because of the effect on concentration (for ones own safety, let alone tens of passengers). I fail to see how this is any different.
As b
hstewie pointed out; crashes happen without people being sleep and food deprived. So why knowingly introduce another risk factor to the scenario?
John D. said:
Sheets Tabuer said:
Are people that affected by not eating, I can go for days without food and not notice any difference at all, certainly no dizziness or anything.
I did work in an airport once and we were putting in the hours and a guy I worked with who had not eaten by 9pm walked off the job because he said he couldn't concentrate and was feeling dizzy, He left us right in the st doing the SAN upgrade. I called bullst but wonder if there is something in it.
I get hangry after about 3hrs I did work in an airport once and we were putting in the hours and a guy I worked with who had not eaten by 9pm walked off the job because he said he couldn't concentrate and was feeling dizzy, He left us right in the s
t doing the SAN upgrade. I called bullst but wonder if there is something in it.It most definitely is a factor. As someone who regularly rides such trains and was directly effected by this crash (it shut Paddington adding 4hrs and £30 to my journey home that evening) I think it needs to be looked at. It's recommended not to operate machinery when on certain medication because of the effect on concentration (for ones own safety, let alone tens of passengers). I fail to see how this is any different.
As b
hstewie pointed out; crashes happen without people being sleep and food deprived. So why knowingly introduce another risk factor to the scenario?It has been a long time since I could do two night in a row out on the "lash" - try it for a month !
Jews are an ethno-religious group so the confusion there has more foundation, but again I think the distinction should be clear. And I don't agree with branding any criticism of Israel, Judaism or Zionism as racist.
It's not a case of"knowing better." The legal system if fallible and we're allowed to question and criticise it and disagree with it.
It's not a case of"knowing better." The legal system if fallible and we're allowed to question and criticise it and disagree with it.
AJS- said:
Jews are an ethno-religious group so the confusion there has more foundation, but again I think the distinction should be clear. And I don't agree with branding any criticism of Israel, Judaism or Zionism as racist.
It's not a case of"knowing better." The legal system if fallible and we're allowed to question and criticise it and disagree with it.
It's always best to disagree with what doesn't support your world view. It's not a case of"knowing better." The legal system if fallible and we're allowed to question and criticise it and disagree with it.
Highly amusing that you were the one who posted the link in the first place.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff