Discussion
citizensm1th said:
So not someone who impinges on my life one iota then, dare I say also not someone who impinges on anyone's life in any meaningful way.
He is part of a group that riles up many parts of the country spinning things to suit his agenda, and while he has a million followers on twitter alone he does have an effect on everyone's life even if not in a direct way. He is one of those that causes divide with the pretence he 'just wants the world to be inclusive'.
He is the epitome of those he says he hates and gets seriously angry when this is pointed out to him, the irony with him is laughable.
Should he have a voice? Of course he should. Just a shame so many listen to him, because then it does affect us all inadvertently.
psi310398 said:
[don't think that]...using the courts to punish (additionally punish, more exactly) someone for what is in their heads rather than for what they have done is right
So from this I'm taking that you have a fundamental objection to the idea that some motivations make the resulting crimes worse than others? That you would not consider attacking someone because they are black, or gay, or religious, or have politics you don't like to be worse than attacking someone because they spilt your pint or you thought they looked at your girlfriend?otolith said:
So from this I'm taking that you have a fundamental objection to the idea that some motivations make the resulting crimes worse than others? That you would not consider attacking someone because they are black, or gay, or religious, or have politics you don't like to be worse than attacking someone because they spilt your pint or you thought they looked at your girlfriend?
I think I made it clear that if there is evidence for such a motivation - e.g. "Take that, you queer" then there would be evidence directly related to the crime, and that would be relevant. Let us take a general principle: the fact that a person believes in Christianity generally does not automatically mean that every action he takes is motivated by a desire to stone every sodomite in the neighbourhood and it would be for the prosecution to prove that the bad act for which said Christian is being prosecuted was motivated by homophobia rather than just drawing on his belief system in general. Why is it any different in Healy's case?
psi310398 said:
otolith said:
So from this I'm taking that you have a fundamental objection to the idea that some motivations make the resulting crimes worse than others? That you would not consider attacking someone because they are black, or gay, or religious, or have politics you don't like to be worse than attacking someone because they spilt your pint or you thought they looked at your girlfriend?
I think I made it clear that if there is evidence for such a motivation - e.g. "Take that, you queer" then there would be evidence directly related to the crime, and that would be relevant. Let us take a general principle: the fact that a person believes in Christianity generally does not automatically mean that every action he takes is motivated by a desire to stone every sodomite in the neighbourhood and it would be for the prosecution to prove that the bad act for which said Christian is being prosecuted was motivated by homophobia rather than just drawing on his belief system in general. Why is it any different in Healy's case?
I don't think I agree with you. I don't think evidence that someone is a racist or homophobe should be excluded from consideration of the motives of the attack - though nor do I think that it should be sufficient for conviction. I don't think that someone who says something they don't really mean in the heat of the moment should be treated more harshly than a hardcore neo-Nazi who knows to keep his mouth shut.
otolith said:
You do consider the motivation important, but do not consider evidence of their views and attitudes to be relevant? You would only allow self-incrimination at the point of the attack?
I don't think I agree with you. I don't think evidence that someone is a racist or homophobe should be excluded from consideration of the motives of the attack - though nor do I think that it should be sufficient for conviction. I don't think that someone who says something they don't really mean in the heat of the moment should be treated more harshly than a hardcore neo-Nazi who knows to keep his mouth shut.
No, incrimination might come from evidence that proves premeditation - "let's go out gay-bashing" - the police will have had a good look at his messages and mobile phone but don't seem to have turned anything up - or a pattern of behaviour - "he's got five convictions for violence at anti-left demonstrations" but his record has no evidence of any relevant pattern of behaviour. So despite an apparently thorough trawl of his past and present, the police seem unable actually to find anything to pin on him. I don't think I agree with you. I don't think evidence that someone is a racist or homophobe should be excluded from consideration of the motives of the attack - though nor do I think that it should be sufficient for conviction. I don't think that someone who says something they don't really mean in the heat of the moment should be treated more harshly than a hardcore neo-Nazi who knows to keep his mouth shut.
And in the absence of anything relevant, the prosecution decided to try out some some general non-specific stuff instead. The 'evidence' adduced to blacken Healy's name does nothing much, individually or in the round, to illuminate the circumstances in which he committed the crime he admitted to, and tells us little more than that he is or has been a yob - which we might have inferred without much assistance from the fact he assaulted Jones.
Assume a similar case where the assault on Jones was carried out instead by a professed, even lapsed, Christian and it is deemed homophobic or racist without the requirement for any further evidence of motivation beyond frequent Church attendance in the past and the ownership of some questionable material, viz paraphenalia like a crucifix and ownership of a Bible - literature full of hate speech and unqualified incitements to violence against gays, non-believers, adulteresses and also absolutely brimming with racial supremacist beliefs? Worse, the culprit might also have some Biggles books on his shelves? Obviously further unquestionable evidence of deeply held racist and imperialist beliefs and desire to reintroduce slavery.
Nonsense? Why? They are similar 'facts'. Where do you draw the line?
It's a very slippery slope.
Esceptico said:
jakesmith said:
If Jones’ efforts to get a Corbyn government elected had worked, would the resulting destruction of the economy and the UK as you know it now not impinge your life?
Destruction of the economy and the UK? Hyperbolic nonsense. What if, what if, what if....Corbyn didn’t get elected and even if he had done it wouldn’t have been because of Owen Jones, who is viewed as an idiot by many on the left, not just the right.
When it comes to the Labour Party, with “friends” like Owens who needs enemies!
psi310398 said:
otolith said:
You do consider the motivation important, but do not consider evidence of their views and attitudes to be relevant? You would only allow self-incrimination at the point of the attack?
I don't think I agree with you. I don't think evidence that someone is a racist or homophobe should be excluded from consideration of the motives of the attack - though nor do I think that it should be sufficient for conviction. I don't think that someone who says something they don't really mean in the heat of the moment should be treated more harshly than a hardcore neo-Nazi who knows to keep his mouth shut.
No, incrimination might come from evidence that proves premeditation - "let's go out gay-bashing" - the police will have had a good look at his messages and mobile phone but don't seem to have turned anything up - or a pattern of behaviour - "he's got five convictions for violence at anti-left demonstrations" but his record has no evidence of any relevant pattern of behaviour. So despite an apparently thorough trawl of his past and present, the police seem unable actually to find anything to pin on him. I don't think I agree with you. I don't think evidence that someone is a racist or homophobe should be excluded from consideration of the motives of the attack - though nor do I think that it should be sufficient for conviction. I don't think that someone who says something they don't really mean in the heat of the moment should be treated more harshly than a hardcore neo-Nazi who knows to keep his mouth shut.
And in the absence of anything relevant, the prosecution decided to try out some some general non-specific stuff instead. The 'evidence' adduced to blacken Healy's name does nothing much, individually or in the round, to illuminate the circumstances in which he committed the crime he admitted to, and tells us little more than that he is or has been a yob - which we might have inferred without much assistance from the fact he assaulted Jones.
Assume a similar case where the assault on Jones was carried out instead by a professed, even lapsed, Christian and it is deemed homophobic or racist without the requirement for any further evidence of motivation beyond frequent Church attendance in the past and the ownership of some questionable material, viz paraphenalia like a crucifix and ownership of a Bible - literature full of hate speech and unqualified incitements to violence against gays, non-believers, adulteresses and also absolutely brimming with racial supremacist beliefs? Worse, the culprit might also have some Biggles books on his shelves? Obviously further unquestionable evidence of deeply held racist and imperialist beliefs and desire to reintroduce slavery.
Nonsense? Why? They are similar 'facts'. Where do you draw the line?
It's a very slippery slope.
jakesmith said:
citizensm1th said:
98elise said:
Massive bell end that writes for the Guardian.
Believes violence against "Fascists" is justified. Uses "Fascist" a lot when he means right wing.
So not someone who impinges on my life one iota then, dare I say also not someone who impinges on anyone's life in any meaningful way. Believes violence against "Fascists" is justified. Uses "Fascist" a lot when he means right wing.
People lend to much weight to the authors of oped fluff in newspapers when in reality they are gust grist to the mill of chattering fools who have just as much influence as the oped authors.
citizensm1th said:
jakesmith said:
citizensm1th said:
98elise said:
Massive bell end that writes for the Guardian.
Believes violence against "Fascists" is justified. Uses "Fascist" a lot when he means right wing.
So not someone who impinges on my life one iota then, dare I say also not someone who impinges on anyone's life in any meaningful way. Believes violence against "Fascists" is justified. Uses "Fascist" a lot when he means right wing.
People lend to much weight to the authors of oped fluff in newspapers when in reality they are gust grist to the mill of chattering fools who have just as much influence as the oped authors.
Oswald Mosely shouldn't be vilified for being a fascist as he didn't get anywhere with it?
jakesmith said:
You think a Corbyn lead government would have improved the economy? He despises wealth, business, sucess, all the things that create a vibrant economy that the aspirational can thrive in.
No I don’t think he would have improved the economy but there is a massive difference between making it a bit worse and “destroying the economy and the UK”. Your post is rather ironic because the election of the Tories and the rush for Brexit might actually “destroy” the UK because it is fuelling Scottish nationalism and might lead to a united Ireland. Esceptico said:
Some of the posts on here are crazy.
RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
Pretty much how I see it.RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
The excuse making and general refusal to simply accept what a court has determined happened is bizarre.
psi310398 said:
No, incrimination might come from evidence that proves premeditation - "let's go out gay-bashing" - the police will have had a good look at his messages and mobile phone but don't seem to have turned anything up - or a pattern of behaviour - "he's got five convictions for violence at anti-left demonstrations" but his record has no evidence of any relevant pattern of behaviour. So despite an apparently thorough trawl of his past and present, the police seem unable actually to find anything to pin on him.
And in the absence of anything relevant, the prosecution decided to try out some some general non-specific stuff instead. The 'evidence' adduced to blacken Healy's name does nothing much, individually or in the round, to illuminate the circumstances in which he committed the crime he admitted to, and tells us little more than that he is or has been a yob - which we might have inferred without much assistance from the fact he assaulted Jones.
Assume a similar case where the assault on Jones was carried out instead by a professed, even lapsed, Christian and it is deemed homophobic or racist without the requirement for any further evidence of motivation beyond frequent Church attendance in the past and the ownership of some questionable material, viz paraphenalia like a crucifix and ownership of a Bible - literature full of hate speech and unqualified incitements to violence against gays, non-believers, adulteresses and also absolutely brimming with racial supremacist beliefs? Worse, the culprit might also have some Biggles books on his shelves? Obviously further unquestionable evidence of deeply held racist and imperialist beliefs and desire to reintroduce slavery.
Nonsense? Why? They are similar 'facts'. Where do you draw the line?
It's a very slippery slope.
There is sufficient evidence that the attack was motivated by hate.And in the absence of anything relevant, the prosecution decided to try out some some general non-specific stuff instead. The 'evidence' adduced to blacken Healy's name does nothing much, individually or in the round, to illuminate the circumstances in which he committed the crime he admitted to, and tells us little more than that he is or has been a yob - which we might have inferred without much assistance from the fact he assaulted Jones.
Assume a similar case where the assault on Jones was carried out instead by a professed, even lapsed, Christian and it is deemed homophobic or racist without the requirement for any further evidence of motivation beyond frequent Church attendance in the past and the ownership of some questionable material, viz paraphenalia like a crucifix and ownership of a Bible - literature full of hate speech and unqualified incitements to violence against gays, non-believers, adulteresses and also absolutely brimming with racial supremacist beliefs? Worse, the culprit might also have some Biggles books on his shelves? Obviously further unquestionable evidence of deeply held racist and imperialist beliefs and desire to reintroduce slavery.
Nonsense? Why? They are similar 'facts'. Where do you draw the line?
It's a very slippery slope.
1. Healy approached OJ and asked him whether he was OJ. I wouldn’t have recognised OJ and I doubt that most “normal” people would either (in surveys of the general public you often find the majority can’t name most of the government except the prime minister and certainly not left wing journalists that write for the Guardian).
2. Why did he check on OJ’s identity if not to make sure that they were not going to attack an “innocent” person ie someone that just looks like OJ?
3. From OJ’s evidence and CCTV there was no altercation or argument in the pub between OJ and Healy. So no evidence of an alternative motive ie because of hurt feelings.
4. From CCTV Healy attacked OJ from behind when he wasn’t looking (so it was a premeditated attack, not a fight).
Taking all the facts above it seems clear - or clear enough - that Healy attacked OJ because of who he was. As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes. The evidence collected at Healy’s house link him to white supremacists, who hate left wingers and homosexuals.
If the attack was not motivated by hate of OJ’s identity and views, what was the motivation?
Esceptico said:
As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes.
No such proof exists.Not being a homophobe but voting Conservative (never UKIP as it happens) I don't hate OJ, others may, but hate is far too extreme to describe my reaction which is more pity than anything else, as per other deluded political activists pushing that particular ideology. It's anachronistic and currently renders political leaders unelectable.
One counter-example is disproof of the above sweeping generalisation.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Esceptico said:
Some of the posts on here are crazy.
RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
Pretty much how I see it.RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
The excuse making and general refusal to simply accept what a court has determined happened is bizarre.
Esceptico said:
There is sufficient evidence that the attack was motivated by hate.
1. Healy approached OJ and asked him whether he was OJ. I wouldn’t have recognised OJ and I doubt that most “normal” people would either (in surveys of the general public you often find the majority can’t name most of the government except the prime minister and certainly not left wing journalists that write for the Guardian).
2. Why did he check on OJ’s identity if not to make sure that they were not going to attack an “innocent” person ie someone that just looks like OJ?
3. From OJ’s evidence and CCTV there was no altercation or argument in the pub between OJ and Healy. So no evidence of an alternative motive ie because of hurt feelings.
4. From CCTV Healy attacked OJ from behind when he wasn’t looking (so it was a premeditated attack, not a fight).
Taking all the facts above it seems clear - or clear enough - that Healy attacked OJ because of who he was. As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes. The evidence collected at Healy’s house link him to white supremacists, who hate left wingers and homosexuals.
If the attack was not motivated by hate of OJ’s identity and views, what was the motivation?
Please don't use such ridiculous arguments that are reasoned and contain actual facts. They will not go down well on here, cos, like, he deserved it cos, like, Owen Jones. This new legal defence will change the face of British justice. 1. Healy approached OJ and asked him whether he was OJ. I wouldn’t have recognised OJ and I doubt that most “normal” people would either (in surveys of the general public you often find the majority can’t name most of the government except the prime minister and certainly not left wing journalists that write for the Guardian).
2. Why did he check on OJ’s identity if not to make sure that they were not going to attack an “innocent” person ie someone that just looks like OJ?
3. From OJ’s evidence and CCTV there was no altercation or argument in the pub between OJ and Healy. So no evidence of an alternative motive ie because of hurt feelings.
4. From CCTV Healy attacked OJ from behind when he wasn’t looking (so it was a premeditated attack, not a fight).
Taking all the facts above it seems clear - or clear enough - that Healy attacked OJ because of who he was. As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes. The evidence collected at Healy’s house link him to white supremacists, who hate left wingers and homosexuals.
If the attack was not motivated by hate of OJ’s identity and views, what was the motivation?
turbobloke said:
Esceptico said:
As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes.
No such proof exists.Not being a homophobe but voting Conservative (never UKIP as it happens) I don't hate OJ, others may, but hate is far too extreme to describe my reaction which is more pity than anything else, as per other deluded political activists pushing that particular ideology. It's anachronistic and currently renders political leaders unelectable.
One counter-example is disproof of the above sweeping generalisation.
Of course when I wrote rightwingers and homophobes hate OJ I was talking about the group and not every single RW or homophobe.
Just go back through the thread to see plenty of hate for OJ with many disbelieving there was an assault, some wishing they had been there to give a hand and others seemingly upset that OJ got off with a light battering rather than being seriously injured.
Esceptico said:
Some of the posts on here are crazy.
RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
Crap example.RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
If you had said...
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked Tommy Robinson and they had found Islamic memorabilia in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
Owen Jones has got famous for being an opinionated t
t in exactly the same way Robinson has. The fact they have not both been slapped more often is the only surprise.
gizlaroc said:
Esceptico said:
Some of the posts on here are crazy.
RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
Crap example.RW bias and hatred of OJ, left wingers and/or homosexuals is clouding many posters judgement.
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked a white soldier and they had found Islamic fundamentalist memorabilia and ISIS stuff in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
If you had said...
With respect to the defendant, if he had been a Muslim and had attacked Tommy Robinson and they had found Islamic memorabilia in his house, would you lot be so keen to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives?
Owen Jones has got famous for being an opinionated t
t in exactly the same way Robinson has. The fact they have not both been slapped more often is the only surprise.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff