Scottish Politics / Independence - Vol 12
Discussion
Ridgemont said:
JK Rowling as discussed before has pulled her big pants on already.
Not a snowball's chance in hell that JK Rowling will be prosecuted, regardless of the number of complaints made. She appears to be ready to stick by her opinions, and has pockets deep enough to fight it all the way.They'll go for easier targets, get a few "successful" prosecutions on the books, set some precedents and ensure many more are scared into compliance.
shtu said:
Ridgemont said:
JK Rowling as discussed before has pulled her big pants on already.
Not a snowball's chance in hell that JK Rowling will be prosecuted, regardless of the number of complaints made. She appears to be ready to stick by her opinions, and has pockets deep enough to fight it all the way.They'll go for easier targets, get a few "successful" prosecutions on the books, set some precedents and ensure many more are scared into compliance.
Jader1973 said:
Some questions that don’t necessarily need answered.
How would a user in say the US know about this daft law?
Should website terms be updated to refer to the legislation and warn users?
Could a site block Scottish IP addresses?
Heh, as much as it would be very annoying, it'd be a hilarious unforseen circumstance if a load of websites decided that the easiest way to protect themselves from enormous amounts of legal action was to just block all users from Scotland How would a user in say the US know about this daft law?
Should website terms be updated to refer to the legislation and warn users?
Could a site block Scottish IP addresses?
Ian974 said:
Jader1973 said:
Some questions that don’t necessarily need answered.
How would a user in say the US know about this daft law?
Should website terms be updated to refer to the legislation and warn users?
Could a site block Scottish IP addresses?
Heh, as much as it would be very annoying, it'd be a hilarious unforseen circumstance if a load of websites decided that the easiest way to protect themselves from enormous amounts of legal action was to just block all users from Scotland How would a user in say the US know about this daft law?
Should website terms be updated to refer to the legislation and warn users?
Could a site block Scottish IP addresses?
Where this whole hate crime thing falls down is that it isn't evidence based. It is all about feelings. So if someone thinks they have been the victim of a hate crime they have.
"Defined as a crime which is perceived by the victim, or anyone else, as being motivated by malice or ill-will towards a social group, hate crime can be a physical assault or a verbal attack, a one-off incident or a prolonged series of situations. Hate crime can occur as an in-person incident or online."
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/ne...
Every other crime that is reported the police gather evidence and first decide has a crime been committed before recording it as a crime. Often, for example, a reported theft might be a civil matter, not crime.
The perceived rule would be like Joe McBloggs reporting a theft when someone hadn't paid a bill whereas this is usually a civil matter. Though not always. For example fraud (board and lodging) where someone fails to pay for a hotel bill and it cam be proved this was intentional. Under hate crime rules, anyone who had a civil loss could perceive it as a theft and get it recorded as a theft. The point being a bit of enquiry is needed not just believing the person making the report without testing it.
As for hate crime. The way this falls down is how ther police were quite happy to record a hate crime against Murdo Fraser without any investigation at all. Leaving aside the facts of this case I would have thought it should be essential to interview the alleged hater to get their side of the story. Not doing so amounts to neglect of duty IMO. Police management seem quite happy with this one sides unfair approach though.
"Defined as a crime which is perceived by the victim, or anyone else, as being motivated by malice or ill-will towards a social group, hate crime can be a physical assault or a verbal attack, a one-off incident or a prolonged series of situations. Hate crime can occur as an in-person incident or online."
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/ne...
Every other crime that is reported the police gather evidence and first decide has a crime been committed before recording it as a crime. Often, for example, a reported theft might be a civil matter, not crime.
The perceived rule would be like Joe McBloggs reporting a theft when someone hadn't paid a bill whereas this is usually a civil matter. Though not always. For example fraud (board and lodging) where someone fails to pay for a hotel bill and it cam be proved this was intentional. Under hate crime rules, anyone who had a civil loss could perceive it as a theft and get it recorded as a theft. The point being a bit of enquiry is needed not just believing the person making the report without testing it.
As for hate crime. The way this falls down is how ther police were quite happy to record a hate crime against Murdo Fraser without any investigation at all. Leaving aside the facts of this case I would have thought it should be essential to interview the alleged hater to get their side of the story. Not doing so amounts to neglect of duty IMO. Police management seem quite happy with this one sides unfair approach though.
Vanden Saab said:
Ian974 said:
Jader1973 said:
Some questions that don’t necessarily need answered.
How would a user in say the US know about this daft law?
Should website terms be updated to refer to the legislation and warn users?
Could a site block Scottish IP addresses?
Heh, as much as it would be very annoying, it'd be a hilarious unforseen circumstance if a load of websites decided that the easiest way to protect themselves from enormous amounts of legal action was to just block all users from Scotland How would a user in say the US know about this daft law?
Should website terms be updated to refer to the legislation and warn users?
Could a site block Scottish IP addresses?
i4got said:
A lot of people (maybe more going forward) have in their bio words to the effect ‘retweeting does not imply endorsement ’
Not sure that will cut it. I doubt you will get carte blanche to retweet anything you like. Different if you are retweeting it along with criticism but if all your retweets have something along the lines of "I hate xxxxx insert protected group" you may struggle
A quick Google finds
"The recent case of Riley and others v Heybroek, however, suggests that a defamation claim can be taken against any individual who retweets a tweet which is deemed to be defamatory. This should be enough to encourage any individual to think twice before carelessly retweeting."
https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/retweet-defamation/
irc said:
Where this whole hate crime thing falls down is that it isn't evidence based. It is all about feelings. So if someone thinks they have been the victim of a hate crime they have.
"Defined as a crime which is perceived by the victim, or anyone else, as being motivated by malice or ill-will towards a social group, hate crime can be a physical assault or a verbal attack, a one-off incident or a prolonged series of situations. Hate crime can occur as an in-person incident or online."
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/ne...
Every other crime that is reported the police gather evidence and first decide has a crime been committed before recording it as a crime. Often, for example, a reported theft might be a civil matter, not crime.
The perceived rule would be like Joe McBloggs reporting a theft when someone hadn't paid a bill whereas this is usually a civil matter. Though not always. For example fraud (board and lodging) where someone fails to pay for a hotel bill and it cam be proved this was intentional. Under hate crime rules, anyone who had a civil loss could perceive it as a theft and get it recorded as a theft. The point being a bit of enquiry is needed not just believing the person making the report without testing it.
As for hate crime. The way this falls down is how ther police were quite happy to record a hate crime against Murdo Fraser without any investigation at all. Leaving aside the facts of this case I would have thought it should be essential to interview the alleged hater to get their side of the story. Not doing so amounts to neglect of duty IMO. Police management seem quite happy with this one sides unfair approach though.
HR law is the same I think (in England too). If someone at works calls someone else a slag in jest and I take offence at it on their behalf, then I have been wronged."Defined as a crime which is perceived by the victim, or anyone else, as being motivated by malice or ill-will towards a social group, hate crime can be a physical assault or a verbal attack, a one-off incident or a prolonged series of situations. Hate crime can occur as an in-person incident or online."
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/ne...
Every other crime that is reported the police gather evidence and first decide has a crime been committed before recording it as a crime. Often, for example, a reported theft might be a civil matter, not crime.
The perceived rule would be like Joe McBloggs reporting a theft when someone hadn't paid a bill whereas this is usually a civil matter. Though not always. For example fraud (board and lodging) where someone fails to pay for a hotel bill and it cam be proved this was intentional. Under hate crime rules, anyone who had a civil loss could perceive it as a theft and get it recorded as a theft. The point being a bit of enquiry is needed not just believing the person making the report without testing it.
As for hate crime. The way this falls down is how ther police were quite happy to record a hate crime against Murdo Fraser without any investigation at all. Leaving aside the facts of this case I would have thought it should be essential to interview the alleged hater to get their side of the story. Not doing so amounts to neglect of duty IMO. Police management seem quite happy with this one sides unfair approach though.
irc said:
i4got said:
A lot of people (maybe more going forward) have in their bio words to the effect ‘retweeting does not imply endorsement ’
Not sure that will cut it. I doubt you will get carte blanche to retweet anything you like. Different if you are retweeting it along with criticism but if all your retweets have something along the lines of "I hate xxxxx insert protected group" you may struggle
A quick Google finds
"The recent case of Riley and others v Heybroek, however, suggests that a defamation claim can be taken against any individual who retweets a tweet which is deemed to be defamatory. This should be enough to encourage any individual to think twice before carelessly retweeting."
https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/retweet-defamation/
irc said:
Sunday Times has a front page story. Companies are having to pay senior staff more to fill posts in Scotland due to the higher tax regime. Otherwise posts are harder to fill. Who would have thought it?
.... So why bother investing in Scotland and pay more for staff when it's already increasingly difficult to get staff any way. Just setup in Carlisle?Briffa threatening to sue Scottish govt for millions of costs incurred in loopy Lorna,s failed DRS scheme.
Just as well the SNP govt has a good track record of winning the court cases it gets involved in.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24222543.biffa...
Just as well the SNP govt has a good track record of winning the court cases it gets involved in.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24222543.biffa...
Patrick Harvie is determined to kill the private rented sector. His new rent controls would cap rents between tennants. So landlords couldn't raise rents for a new let.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24222822.harvi...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24222822.harvi...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/mega-poll-s... Assuming this poll is close to accurate, how the hell is this possible? 41 seats returned including a load of gains from the Tories? I’ve not seen the detail but I assume it’s basically Labour taking a load of seats in Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire and into Renfrewshire & Inverclyde, the Lib Dem’s clinging on in NE Fife and the Northern Isles and the SNP winning everything else including Aberdeenshire, Moray, Dumfries & Galloway and the Tory seats across far south Lanarkshire and the Borders.
Exactly what does Yousaf have to do to lose these seats?
Exactly what does Yousaf have to do to lose these seats?
alangla said:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/mega-poll-s... Assuming this poll is close to accurate, how the hell is this possible? 41 seats returned including a load of gains from the Tories? I’ve not seen the detail but I assume it’s basically Labour taking a load of seats in Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire and into Renfrewshire & Inverclyde, the Lib Dem’s clinging on in NE Fife and the Northern Isles and the SNP winning everything else including Aberdeenshire, Moray, Dumfries & Galloway and the Tory seats across far south Lanarkshire and the Borders.
Exactly what does Yousaf have to do to lose these seats?
It's a poll (of polls) - a sample and best taken with a pinch of salt. Exactly what does Yousaf have to do to lose these seats?
TBH I've no idea what will happen in Scotland at the next GE but would expect Labour to make big gains in SNP held seats.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff