Man in Scotland arrested over dog's 'Nazi salute'.

[Thorodin]

Those in positions of authority that manage the system will not stop pursuing the dogma until the fear of being ridiculed and demoted by their seniors is removed. And they in turn will be ever vigilant to ensure they comply with the competition to out-perform their competitors in this greasy pole circus. At the bottom of the pile are the evangelists, stoking the fires.

[anonymous-user]

Woo! I have run that through every translation prog on the net, but it still comes out as impenetrable gobbledegook. Have you considered applying for a job as an Old Testament prophet or New Age internet guru? Writing portentously meaningless blurb is a key skill for those gigs, I hear.

[anonymous-user]

chris watton said:

What I find scary is that most of the population are oblivious to this, the majority do not realise they have been sleep walking into a police state, where actual thought crime is now a reality.

I think that things are going to get a lot worse, as the judge who found this guy guilty has the same mind set as most who have power, whether government, civil service, police, schools, universities. Things have already gone too for anyone to reverse this.

ETA - Also, it is the same hive mind set that allows little children to be sacrificed at the alter of 'diversity', I say allows because I have no doubt this st is going on in most towns and cities. yet they pick on the little guy, the easy targets, even if they have to make st up, law-wise to teach the little guy a lesson. Either they are huge cowards or there's another agenda at work - but that's entering tin foil hat territory. However, if I was told a decade ago that a guy could be arrested and potentially imprisoned for a joke video, I would not have believed it. I think we have all been subjected to the boiling frog treatment, and some are starting to notice.

Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 28th March 19:02

Dude, judging by that post you are so far into tinfoil hat territory that you've fallen off the edge of the map. The conviction in this case was absurd, and I would be surprised if it is not quashed on appeal (as happened in the Twitter joke case referred to above); but suggesting that the UK is a police state is a bit of an insult to the many who groan under the tyrannies of real police states. I know that it's fun to complain that things are as bad as they possibly can be, and "it's all gone too far" , and so on, but that doesn't have much connection with reality.

[chris watton]

Breadvan72 said:

Dude, judging by that post you are so far into tinfoil hat territory that you've fallen off the edge of the map. The conviction in this case was absurd, and I would be surprised if it is not quashed on appeal (as happened in the Twitter joke case referred to above); but suggesting that the UK is a police state is a bit of an insult to the many who groan under the tyrannies of real police states. I know that it's fun to complain that things are as bad as they possibly can be, and "it's all gone too far" , and so on, but that doesn't have much connection with reality.

I wish you were right. Sadly, I don't think you are.

Please, tell the 1000 or so young girls who were and are kept as sex slaves that everything's hunky dory, and their parents who, when telling the authorities where their daughters are and are arrested themselves, that they are not in a police state that is protecting one group over another, when we are all supposed to be equal under the law. Clearly, this is no longer the case, no doubt due to cowardice from your peers.

I am shocked by what I have learned over the past few weeks, so forgive me if I do not share your view that all's OK, nothing to see here.

[Thorodin]

Breadvan72 said:

Woo! I have run that through every translation prog on the net, but it still comes out as impenetrable gobbledegook. Have you considered applying for a job as an Old Testament prophet or New Age internet guru? Writing portentously meaningless blurb is a key skill for those gigs, I hear.

Well I admit I was bored when I wrote it but would have thought that your labyrinthine mind would find it easy. I take it as a compliment that you ran that many tests and got so excited. I just hope I'm never the next cab on the rank. And I'm fortunate enough to neither require nor want a job.

Edited by Thorodin on Wednesday 28th March 21:19

[moanthebairns]

My worry is that recently we have seen a surge in chasing crimes that the government deem to be wanting to stamp out.
Pushing their agenda on us trying to make us feel we should be shocked and mortified by this.
It seems easy hanging fruit to me. And I'd sooner the police persued criminals that actually effect our lives and wallet. Rather than complaining budget's are tight and forcing through weak as fk cases and withholding information accounting to a miss carriage of justice.

This case has really bothered me. The more it goes on the more angry I get.

[WinstonWolf]

Breadvan72 said:

Dude, judging by that post you are so far into tinfoil hat territory that you've fallen off the edge of the map. The conviction in this case was absurd, and I would be surprised if it is not quashed on appeal (as happened in the Twitter joke case referred to above); but suggesting that the UK is a police state is a bit of an insult to the many who groan under the tyrannies of real police states. I know that it's fun to complain that things are as bad as they possibly can be, and "it's all gone too far" , and so on, but that doesn't have much connection with reality.

It does, however, align pretty well with 1984. Newspeak, Minitru, they're happening now.

The judge specifically excluded intent, that's worrying.

[anonymous-user]

Russian Troll Bot said:

Apparently done as an experiment, but shows the world we now live in. Isn't this the same police force that won't come out for minor crimes and has seen 10 murders on its patch in the last 12 days?

There's was no need to 'experiment'.

All they needed to do was look at what the results of the Macpherson enquiry (murder of Stephen Lawrence) were.

All hate incidents, not crimes (people often mistake the former for the latter), are recorded based solely on the perception of the person reporting.

A hate crime (racial / religious) can only occur when there's damage, certain public order offences, harassment or assault to begin with.

The fundamental idea is it's best to cast a wide net and accept rubbish to avoid missing things which are significant.

Regardless, the police have no discretion in the matter and I suspect could be subject to legal action if they refused / failed to record.

[Janluke]

moanthebairns said:

My worry is that recently we have seen a surge in chasing crimes that the government deem to be wanting to stamp out.
Pushing their agenda on us trying to make us feel we should be shocked and mortified by this.
It seems easy hanging fruit to me. And I'd sooner the police persued criminals that actually effect our lives and wallet. Rather than complaining budget's are tight and forcing through weak as fk cases and withholding information accounting to a miss carriage of justice.

This case has really bothered me. The more it goes on the more angry I get.

Its mad in Central Scotland isnt it, get your car/bike/bicycle stolen you'll struggle to speak to an officer let alone get one to visit. Call your neighbour a tt on Facebook and two gentlemen on the door within 30 mins(not me btw )

[Patrick Bateman]

Not sure how many of you are on twitter but what this case has done is show that Graham Linehan (creator of Father Ted of all things, sadly) is an absolutely monumental bell end.

[Goaty Bill 2]

It may not be much, but there are things people can do as previously posted;

wc98 said:

don't know if signing these things makes any difference , but hey ho. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615
Create a Freedom of Speech Act and Bring an End to "Hate Speech" laws
For several years now the government has been infringing peoples' most basic rights to speak freely on matters, by deeming their speech "offensive" or "hateful" and declaring that such speech, even online, warrants being fined or jailed. This is an outrage.

More details
We demand the legal right to Free Speech, in an Act which will bring an end to the ludicrous notion that "hate speech" and "offensive speech" deserves people be imprisoned or charged. In short, an Act to codify the citizens' right to freedom of speech without government intervention.

Ideas must be fought with other ideas, not with force.
Naturally this precludes that the current laws criminalizing "hate speech" be rescinded.

Boydie88 said:

Yorkshire MP Philip Davies has demanded a debate on freedom of speech after a man was found guilty of making a "grossly offensive" video online.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/yorkshire-mp...

Well done Philip Davies.

Sign the e-petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615

Write / email Philip Davies to offer support for his attempt to bring a debate.
https://www.philip-davies.org.uk/

When Dankula (or someone on his behalf) eventually begins to raise money to fund his appeal, reach into your wallet. Every fiver/tenner helps.

[Pesty]

irocfan said:

how does this work if vegans perceive that our eating a lovely, juicy steak is offensive?

Try eating one at one of their protests marches wonder what would happen.

[Rick_1138]

Pesty said:

irocfan said:

how does this work if vegans perceive that our eating a lovely, juicy steak is offensive?

Try eating one at one of their protests marches wonder what would happen.

Just jog away, they tire easily from lack of vitamin B12 and Iron, but you with your nice rare steak will be full to the brim of energy...

[anonymous-user]

Re the calls for a Free Speech Act, there is already a substantial body of free speech law, some of it dating from the eighteenth century, and nowadays reinforced by Article 10 of the ECHR, but the protections for free speech in the UK, while wider than they are in some other democracies, are not as wide as they are in the US (under the First Amendment to the US Constitution), and are sometimes eroded by statutes which create offences relating to speech. In the case under discussion, however, I wonder whether the Judge paid any or sufficient regard to Article 10.

[Smiler.]

Pesty said:

irocfan said:

how does this work if vegans perceive that our eating a lovely, juicy steak is offensive?

Try eating one at one of their protests marches wonder what would happen.

I'd wager they'd be really stringy with a bitter taste.

[Donbot]

Smiler. said:

Pesty said:

irocfan said:

how does this work if vegans perceive that our eating a lovely, juicy steak is offensive?

Try eating one at one of their protests marches wonder what would happen.

I'd wager they'd be really stringy with a bitter taste.

[Order66]

Breadvan72 said:

wonder whether the Judge paid any or sufficient regard to Article 10.

Do you think there's a chance of successful appeal (given your experience)?

[Pesty]

Smiler. said:

I'd wager they'd be really stringy with a bitter taste.

[anonymous-user]

Order66 said:

Breadvan72 said:

wonder whether the Judge paid any or sufficient regard to Article 10.

Do you think there's a chance of successful appeal (given your experience)?

I am not a Scots lawyer, but the application of free speech principles ought to be the same in Scotland as in England. If the (Scottish) Sheriff Appeal Court adopts the same approach as that adopted by the (English) Divisional Court in the Twitter joke case I mentioned above, then I think that an appeal would have good prospects of success. I add, however, that I don't know the detail of the evidence given in the case, and reiterate that I am only qualified in England and Wales (and some other jurisdictions, but not Scotland).

PS: a Scottish Court is not bound by decisions of English Courts, but may find them persuasive. If the case ever gets as far as the UK Supreme Court, the Justices could give some clear guidance on free speech principles applicable across the UK, but the case may not get that far.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 1st April 14:40

[Goaty Bill 2]

Breadvan72 said:

Order66 said:

Breadvan72 said:

wonder whether the Judge paid any or sufficient regard to Article 10.

Do you think there's a chance of successful appeal (given your experience)?

I am not a Scots lawyer, but the application of free speech principles ought to be the same in Scotland as in England. If the (Scottish) Sheriff Appeal Court adopts the same approach as that adopted by the (English) Divisional Court in the Twitter joke case I mentioned above, then I think that an appeal would have good prospects of success. I add, however, that I don't know the detail of the evidence given in the case, and reiterate that I am only qualified in England and Wales (and some other jurisdictions, but not Scotland).

PS: a Scottish Court is not bound by decisions of English Courts, but may find them persuasive. If the case ever gets as far as the UK Supreme Court, the Justices could give some clear guidance on free speech principles applicable across the UK, but the case may not get that far.

I am pleased to read your opinion on this, in spite of your lack of specific qualification to do so professionally.

Having read 'Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights' a couple of times, I find part two spectacularly wishy washy; almost something of a get out clause. I hope I am wrong.

If this goes to appeal and, regardless of the sentence, I sincerely hope that it does, I will be reaching as deeply into my pockets as I am able to support Dankula.

Britain has long been, in spite of it's lack of a specific equivalent of the American First Amendment, a bastion for freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the west. That has often included many things that I find personally repugnant or offensive, but have long considered it a price worth paying.