advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+23)?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DonQuixote99

pfm Member
The stats showing a rise in hate crime have no connection with any actual rise in hate crime.
The only way that makes any sense is as a claim that there's been a rise in the measure of a thing, without a corresponding rise in the thing measured. The question is, if you think that's the case with hate crime, how do you know?
 
So true...

"That weird crackle permeating the airwaves at the moment is politics, stupidity and English nationalism colliding with unreadable science fiction. This is a time travel novel co-authored by a committee of fantasists at Tory central office to woo a group of Home Counties golf-club fundamentalists. 2016 has called, everyone, and it wants its grotesque, exceptionalist political lunacy back.

Even the macho talk of no-deal recalls that basic premise of the referendum campaign: 'they need us more than we need them'. Politicians in London still think they should 'threaten' the EU with no-deal, as though it will submit in terror at the prospect. They also insist Brussels will do as we tell them because they stand to suffer economic harm if they don't. Sadly, Brussels knows the truth now as clearly as it did in 2016: no-deal will cause far more damage to us. The Tories' blackmail tactic will fail just as spectacularly this time as it did the last." https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-...the-tory-leadership-race-is-a-grotesque-rerun
 
Could you explain what this sentence means? The “ pulling in 25% of GDP money laundering economy”?
Republic of ireland international company corporation tax rate 12.5%. As percentage of their GDP is 25%. 'Money laundering economy' was the term used by Stephen Bennet to describe the direction of taxation in the uk.
 
Republic of ireland international company corporation tax rate 12.5%. As percentage of their GDP is 25%. 'Money laundering economy' was the term used by Stephen Bennet to describe the direction of taxation in the uk.
I wasn’t aware corporation tax was recorded as part of GDP- is that true? Or are you suggesting the businesses subject to this level of CT generate 25% of GDP?
 
Last time i did an economics degree tax was not included in the calculation of GDP

.....(but it was a long time ago:))
 
Lib Dem MEPs have arrived in Brussels to demand that the European Parliament stops Brexit:

48179676152_328dafab77_z.jpg


That should sort it.
 
Lib Dem MEPs have arrived in Brussels to demand that the European Parliament stops Brexit:

48179676152_328dafab77_z.jpg


That should sort it.
Well I’m coming round to the other Jeremy’s Brexit- he’s matching Labour’s public spending level pledge and slashing taxes and takin back control. What’s not to like?
 
Yes they will probably walk them through building and back out the other side to get the flight back to Brexitland. Maybe they think they are meeting Putin and he will go in and sort it out asap

Lib Dem MEPs have arrived in Brussels to demand that the European Parliament stops Brexit:

48179676152_328dafab77_z.jpg


That should sort it.
 
Meanwhile, MEPs from the far-right Identity and Democracy group refused to stand for the "Ode to Joy."

"We stayed seated [during the anthem] because we consider the European Union is not a state and therefore has no anthem," French National Rally MEP Nicolas Bay said. The Brexit Party MEPs "want to leave the EU and we don't, so they expressed it a bit differently."

Meanwhile, Catalan MEPs displayed pictures of their colleagues who have been barred from the first session in the chamber, while leftist MEPs held up signs calling for better treatment of migrants who come to Europe.

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-brexit-party-meps-turn-backs-during-european-anthem/

Seems odd the EU has an anthem.
 
I wasn’t aware corporation tax was recorded as part of GDP- is that true? Or are you suggesting the businesses subject to this level of CT generate 25% of GDP?
I took that to mean GDP * .25 = Taxable Corporate Revenue * .125. Therefore Taxable Corporate Revenue = 2*GDP. Which makes no sense and cannot be right, so it must mean something else.
 

Why? It seems rather apt to me and something to be proud of. Those fat, boorish Brexit Party twats embarrassing the UK wouldn't even have a clue what it meant.

Ironically turning their backs on the 'Ode to Joy' just about defines them. I despise every one of the c**ts.
It's odd for the reason mentioned in the article by the French MEP, shown by remaining seated. Others have had a bit of protest as well, shown by holding up signs etc.

Meanwhile, MEPs from the far-right Identity and Democracy group refused to stand for the "Ode to Joy."

"We stayed seated [during the anthem] because we consider the European Union is not a state and therefore has no anthem," French National Rally MEP Nicolas Bay said. The Brexit Party MEPs "want to leave the EU and we don't, so they expressed it a bit differently."

Meanwhile, Catalan MEPs displayed pictures of their colleagues who have been barred from the first session in the chamber, while leftist MEPs held up signs calling for better treatment of migrants who come to Europe.
 
It's odd for the reason mentioned in the article by the French MEP, shown by remaining seated. Others have had a bit of protest as well, shown by holding up signs etc.

Yes the far right have always opposed the sentiments expressed in The Ode to Joy. The bit that I find even more shameful than brexit is the symbolism of Great Britain being seen to be aligning with the far right. It is moving and optimistic that 27 nations stand behind the expressed sentiments of universal brotherhood and love exemplified by The Ode to Joy.
Whereas people like you find it 'odd'. Well that is why you and people like you are directly responsible for a 60% rise in hate crime since brexit. It is getting worse- we are actually voting for people who want to turn their back on the Ode to Joy and everything it stands for.
So Brian when someone spits on a woman in a hijab or attacks someone because they are brown of turns someone away from a rental property because they are Polish that's you Brian. And don't give me all that old w**k about how we don't know how you voted. I don't give a toss. You have supported it, argued for it and defended it since day one.
 
Last edited:
The only way that makes any sense is as a claim that there's been a rise in the measure of a thing, without a corresponding rise in the thing measured. ...

Yes, that just about covers it.

The definition of 'hate crime', which started being measured about a decade ago, has become bizarrely subjectified, and something of an obsession of government, police and media, and inevitably, the left. It has also become very easy to report 'hate crime', anonymously if so wished, using the web (simply press the red button). A hate crime is defined as 'any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic', that prejudice being based on race, religion or faith,sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. The keywords there are 'perceived by the victim or any other person'. No evidence is required, and the police are required by law to log any such report as a hate incident. Should the police question the victim/witness in such a way as to make that person uncomfortable the person could then report the attitude of the police as a secondary hate crime incident. Police guidance stresses that all that counts is the perception of the victim/witness, and that motivation, or more importantly lack of it, is irrelevant. The defining characteristic of the person does not even need to be mentioned in the incident - should someone abuse a person in the street, and that person happen to be gay, or dark-skinned or to follow a particular faith, whatever, that characteristic doesn't even need to be mentioned by the abuser for the victim (or any other person) to report the incident as a hate crime, and should they do so the police are still compelled to report it as such.

The CPS guidance says that 'the prosecution does not need to prove hatred as the motivating factor behind the offence', adding that any crime that involved 'ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment or dislike' on the basis of a personal characteristic could be a hate crime, so simply being unpleasant or unfriendly to someone might now be considered a criminal offence if that unfriendliness is perceived to be based on a personal characteristic.

Police operational guidance also requires that there should be a continuous increase in the reporting of hate crime, based initially upon the reasonable belief that a great deal of hate crime was previously not being reported, so the police themselves are motivated to report ever more hate crime, and that any drop in the level of reporting should be considered a failure rather than a success. Success, therefore, is measured upon creating evidence to suggest that the incidence of hate crime is increasing, and that the problems are getting worse.

This has all been acknowledged in official hate crime reports. Certainly there were spikes at the time of the referendum and the Paris, London and Manchester attacks, but reports have repeatedly stated that a 'high proportion' of the increase in hate crime statistics are' likely to be due to better reporting'. There has been an improvement in conviction rates of those cases that are referred by the police to the CPS, I think that there was an increase of around 1000 referrals from the 10,000 to the 11,000 mark last year in the case of race/religion hate crimes, with conviction rates edging up into the mid-80%s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top