Discussion
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Well that's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of when I voted for a right wing Tory government with a libertarian streak 11 months ago.
Why do people think Boris is/was a libertarian? Buggering up London's roads with cycle lanes never struck me as particularly libertarian. To give him credit, he did rescind the Western extension of the congestion charge zone. However now he is pushing for a much larger expansion. He isn't a libertarian. Whatever he does is for his own advantage, not for ours. Libertarianism will never win votes in a democracy, because in reality how much liberty you have depends on how much money you have and the majority don't have much of either.Did anyone see his anti-white speech in Holyrood? Courageous, powerful, on the cultural button...& madly racist.
Have a gander - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOlqqdGZBU and bear in mind the Scottish demographic, 96.2 %ish.
[apols for having it on what is presumably a pushy 'white' rights type channel - it was via google search, not subscription or anything.]
-
The existing law is sufficient to successfully prosecute a nazi saluting dog owner despite the only complaint being from a Jewish organisation that were shown it by the police.
That he actually had to amend it to include 'intent' from the offender rather than originally letting it be up to the 'victim' to decide what was intended tells you much. A child can see the flaws. A Justice Minister, apparently, cannot.
Have a gander - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOlqqdGZBU and bear in mind the Scottish demographic, 96.2 %ish.
[apols for having it on what is presumably a pushy 'white' rights type channel - it was via google search, not subscription or anything.]
-
The existing law is sufficient to successfully prosecute a nazi saluting dog owner despite the only complaint being from a Jewish organisation that were shown it by the police.
That he actually had to amend it to include 'intent' from the offender rather than originally letting it be up to the 'victim' to decide what was intended tells you much. A child can see the flaws. A Justice Minister, apparently, cannot.
Edited by andy_s on Wednesday 4th November 19:41
andy_s said:
Did anyone see his anti-white speech in Holyrood? Courageous, powerful, on the cultural button...& madly racist.
Have a gander - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOlqqdGZBU and bear in mind the Scottish demographic, 96.2 %ish.
[apols for having it on what is presumably a pushy 'white' rights type channel - it was via google search, not subscription or anything.]
-
The existing law is sufficient to successfully prosecute a nazi saluting dog owner despite the only complaint being from a Jewish organisation that were shown it by the police.
That he actually had to amend it to include 'intent' from the offender rather than originally letting it be up to the 'victim' to decide what was intended tells you much. A child can see the flaws. A Justice Minister, apparently, cannot.
Let's hope no one shows him a photo of the Japanese or Saudi Arabian government, the poor guy will have a heart attack.Have a gander - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOlqqdGZBU and bear in mind the Scottish demographic, 96.2 %ish.
[apols for having it on what is presumably a pushy 'white' rights type channel - it was via google search, not subscription or anything.]
-
The existing law is sufficient to successfully prosecute a nazi saluting dog owner despite the only complaint being from a Jewish organisation that were shown it by the police.
That he actually had to amend it to include 'intent' from the offender rather than originally letting it be up to the 'victim' to decide what was intended tells you much. A child can see the flaws. A Justice Minister, apparently, cannot.
Edited by andy_s on Wednesday 4th November 19:41
Misanthrope said:
Why do people think Boris is/was a libertarian? Buggering up London's roads with cycle lanes never struck me as particularly libertarian. To give him credit, he did rescind the Western extension of the congestion charge zone. However now he is pushing for a much larger expansion. He isn't a libertarian. Whatever he does is for his own advantage, not for ours. Libertarianism will never win votes in a democracy, because in reality how much liberty you have depends on how much money you have and the majority don't have much of either.
I said a libertarian streak. I never thought Boris himself was a full on libertarian, but he did seem to speak to that section of Conservative voters who are neither nasty authoritarians of the May variety or nice authoritarians of the we know best Cameron variety. How wrong I was. Turns out he is actually both.Misanthrope said:
No downside for him. If you have one or more of the "exemption cards" (jew, muslim, homosexual, ethnic minority, woman) you get at least partial immunity from this s
t. If you have none, basically you have to keep your mouth shut and put your hand in your pocket.
I guess Irish travellers will be exempted thier misogynistic rants as well. t. If you have none, basically you have to keep your mouth shut and put your hand in your pocket.The SNP say they’re doing this to protect children, family and house guests. 
“ The bill is loosely based on the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour but includes a “dwelling defence” that states the threatening language cannot be prosecuted if it is spoken in a private home.
Mr Yousaf said that there should be no “dwelling defence” in his bill. He told the Scottish parliament’s justice committee that children, family and house guests must be protected from hate speech. He told MSPs: “Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home? . . . If your intention was to stir up hatred against Jews . . . then I think that deserves criminal sanction.””
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill...
“ The bill is loosely based on the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour but includes a “dwelling defence” that states the threatening language cannot be prosecuted if it is spoken in a private home.
Mr Yousaf said that there should be no “dwelling defence” in his bill. He told the Scottish parliament’s justice committee that children, family and house guests must be protected from hate speech. He told MSPs: “Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home? . . . If your intention was to stir up hatred against Jews . . . then I think that deserves criminal sanction.””
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill...
It’s good I suppose that this is only being brought in now that we all have Amazon Echo and the like in our homes, so it’ll be easy enough to monitor us.
We’ll need to make it illegal to turn them off, of course, and there’s still the chance that some people will find a small nook where the cameras and microphones can’t pick up what they are doing.
We’ll need to make it illegal to turn them off, of course, and there’s still the chance that some people will find a small nook where the cameras and microphones can’t pick up what they are doing.
BlackLabel said:
The SNP say they’re doing this to protect children, family and house guests.
“ The bill is loosely based on the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour but includes a “dwelling defence” that states the threatening language cannot be prosecuted if it is spoken in a private home.
Mr Yousaf said that there should be no “dwelling defence” in his bill. He told the Scottish parliament’s justice committee that children, family and house guests must be protected from hate speech. He told MSPs: “Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home? . . . If your intention was to stir up hatred against Jews . . . then I think that deserves criminal sanction.””
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill...
Presumably if this was ever introduced in England then Naz shah could be prosecuted for her tweets. “ The bill is loosely based on the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour but includes a “dwelling defence” that states the threatening language cannot be prosecuted if it is spoken in a private home.
Mr Yousaf said that there should be no “dwelling defence” in his bill. He told the Scottish parliament’s justice committee that children, family and house guests must be protected from hate speech. He told MSPs: “Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home? . . . If your intention was to stir up hatred against Jews . . . then I think that deserves criminal sanction.””
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill...
So this new law will also apply to the multitudes of xenophobic SNP tribalists, that means no more hate speech against
the Tories and the English people, no more banners at the border instructing north bound traffic to f... off, no more hateful
nasty banners being paraded through the Scottish streets on indy marches, etc etc.
I wonder if Mr Yousaf has really thought this through, he is after all not a very bright spark, this is the guy that got
done for driving without insurance whilst being the transport minister of Scotland.
the Tories and the English people, no more banners at the border instructing north bound traffic to f... off, no more hateful
nasty banners being paraded through the Scottish streets on indy marches, etc etc.
I wonder if Mr Yousaf has really thought this through, he is after all not a very bright spark, this is the guy that got
done for driving without insurance whilst being the transport minister of Scotland.
“ Mr Yousaf has resisted calls to replicate a "dwelling defence" which featured in older legislation, and meant an accused would be protected from prosecution if they committed the offence in their own home.
He said: "You are not going to be hauled in front of a court or thrown in the jail for expressing what might again be offensive views on immigration, asylum, refugees, people's religion, or sexual orientation.
"But if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that your behaviour was threatening or abusive and it can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that you intended to stir up hatred, then you will be prosecuted.
"And it's not, for me, a defence that simply because this happened in your home, where you might have 10 people, 15 people… you might have a mansion and have 50 people round, and you're stirring up that kind of hatred. That to me is not an adequate defence."”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55046068
He said: "You are not going to be hauled in front of a court or thrown in the jail for expressing what might again be offensive views on immigration, asylum, refugees, people's religion, or sexual orientation.
"But if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that your behaviour was threatening or abusive and it can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that you intended to stir up hatred, then you will be prosecuted.
"And it's not, for me, a defence that simply because this happened in your home, where you might have 10 people, 15 people… you might have a mansion and have 50 people round, and you're stirring up that kind of hatred. That to me is not an adequate defence."”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55046068
kowalski655 said:
What is spoken during the Old Firm derby in Glasgow would certainly qualify! Imagine trying to shut up football supporters!
You've never heard of this then? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/1/contents...Repealed because it was a complete & utter piece of s
t, badly drafted, ill thought out & (IIRC) only ever used for prosecutions once it became clear the parliament was getting ready to repeal it. The individuals charged under it were later re-charged with other offences.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/football-fans-f...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff