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

[SteveS1]

No, I don’t complain or report anything. Do you?

Your post 1335 and my reply is below.


I did miss it. That was because I switched off at your second sentence.

The answer to your question is I believe in Labour party values and that will not change if Labour campaigns for remain or leave. What did you expect the answer to be?

What I support is preventing a tory govt.

Thanks. A good example of your non snide replies lol.

I won’t bother with a separate reply regarding your ‘personal matter’ rubbish. It’s at the core of your disingenuous approach to this debate.

 

[MVV]

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.

Another breeze block of bollocks. Make smoke and divert that is all left for you and people like you. Be honest and just turn your back with the rest of them.

 

[stephen bennett]

This is where we are now. The UK represented in an international forum. Disrespectful and childish.

In front, representatives of the most successful peaceful collaboration of countries with different cultures, languages and who were either recently at war, or under Soviet occupation.Now working together. Possibly the last bastion of liberal democracy in the world with any influence.

At the back, the 'representatives' we have sent to this forum.

I suspect the EU will be glad to be shot of us.

I've never been embarrassed to be British before. I am now.

Stephen

 

[DonQuixote99]

What next, the brownshits and disruptive chants?

 

[eternumviti]

Try telling my friend Laurence this. She is French and has lived in London for 30 years. This is what happened to her the other day:

"For politely asking a middle aged man to make space reducing his over enthusiastic legs spread and moving his bag so I could sit on the last available seat in the dlr carriage I was called a twat, then a knob a few minutes later, before culminating with a triumphant 'foreign scum' as he cowardly got off. Brexit Britain anyone?… "

There are a lot of racists and nationalists in England and, if they voted in the Referendum, they voted to Leave. Fact.

Jack

Boorish, arrogant, rude and even violent behaviour seems to have become sadly a bit ubiquitous, particularly in London, though it is widely accepted that the UK is one of the most racially and religiously tolerant nations in Europe and probably in the world.

My only experience of this kind took place on the TGV between Reims and Paris about 5 years ago when a member of our party found her reserved seat had been taken by a strongly built, headphone-wearing man who happened to be of West-African appearance. When one of the male members of the party politely pointed out that he must have made a mistake and requested politely that he give up his seat, he looked both the man and the woman in the eye and hurled a mouthful of racial abuse at them in French, which we all happened to speak and understand. He had no intention of moving, so there the matter was left.

If you want to see racism, I would suggest that you probably have a better chance of finding it in France, Poland, Hungary or Austria than you will in even in London.

Yes, you support Brexit.

How am I meant to interpret that comment?

 

[Stunsworth]

How am I meant to interpret that comment?

I’m not really bothered, it was a reply to someone else’s comment.

 

[Brian]

Thanks. A good example of your non snide replies lol.

I won’t bother with a separate reply regarding your ‘personal matter’ rubbish. It’s at the core of your disingenuous approach to this debate.

I have no idea what you're finding so problematic about what I posted. I answered your question honestly but that answer clearly wasn't what you wanted it to be, so no acknowledgement from you. Talk about disingenuous...

The reason you won't bother with a reply to the other part of my post is because you know that fundamentally, you are wrong. The simple fact is, nobody has to reveal how they voted and you don't know how I voted. You are making it up.

There is no debate, there is an echo-chamber where a number of people agree with each other and some abuse those they deem not to be a hard-remainer. Someone else mentioned it recently but the post and replies were deleted. You consider that to be a debate?

I expect now the troll accusation has been thrown around today it'll appear again and again in an effort to make it stick.

 

[eternumviti]

I’m not really bothered, it was a reply to someone else’s comment.

It wasn't. Post #1429, it was a response to my comment.

 

[TheDecameron]

What next, the brownshits and disruptive chants?

Maybe they'll get their lighters out and try to set fire to the seats. The finest display of British exceptionalism in the building was the Rev Ian Paisley MEP having to be carried out frothing, kicking his legs and shouting when the pope addressed the Parliament.

 

[eternumviti]

Another breeze block of bollocks. Make smoke and divert that is all left for you and people like you. Be honest and just turn your back with the rest of them.

I love the way you condemn something that you don't want to hear as 'bollocks' without even bothering to check the facts.

 

[TheDecameron]

It wasn't. Post #1429, it was a response to my comment.

EV, you'd make a great ticket inspector.

 

[stevec67]

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.

4 paragraphs of verbosity. Meanwhile someone is convicted in a court of law of shouting "When Brexit happens you're leaving, you f*ing n***er" in a bookie's shop, there are a number of others, and yet this isn't a result of Brexit. I'll say what I did before. Bull.

 

[SteveS1]

I have no idea what you're finding so problematic about what I posted. I answered your question honestly but that answer clearly wasn't what you wanted it to be, so no acknowledgement from you. Talk about disingenuous...

The reason you won't bother with a reply to the other part of my post is because you know that fundamentally, you are wrong. The simple fact is, nobody has to reveal how they voted and you don't know how I voted. You are making it up.

There is no debate, there is an echo-chamber where a number of people agree with each other and some abuse those they deem not to be a hard-remainer. Someone else mentioned it recently but the post and replies were deleted. You consider that to be a debate?

I expect now the troll accusation has been thrown around today it'll appear again and again in an effort to make it stick.

Of course you don’t, that would require some self awareness and this little word salad of excuses, blame and deflection is your typical nonsense. Your pretence on how you voted fools nobody and just makes you look like you’re trolling. Nobody else is being so precious over it.

 

[Stunsworth]

It wasn't. Post #1429, it was a response to my comment.

My mistake, sorry. It was intended as a response to the following post, not yours.

 

[eternumviti]

EV, you'd make a great ticket inspector.

Not my bag.

 

[Lee T]

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

That should sort it.

Yup, let's cancel the biggest turn out of any vote in the history of the UK & see what happens to the country. Make Brexit look like a side show but the lib dems have it all in hand

 

[Lee T]

Not my bag.

You're the ticket inspector, i'm the lollypop man. Jobs Dec feels below his standing in life, I imagine there is a long list

 

[richardg]

Try telling my friend Laurence this. She is French and has lived in London for 30 years. This is what happened to her the other day:

"For politely asking a middle aged man to make space reducing his over enthusiastic legs spread and moving his bag so I could sit on the last available seat in the dlr carriage I was called a twat, then a knob a few minutes later, before culminating with a triumphant 'foreign scum' as he cowardly got off. Brexit Britain anyone?… "

There are a lot of racists and nationalists in England and, if they voted in the Referendum, they voted to Leave. Fact.

Jack

There are more racists and nationalists in France than the UK. It's a case of the UK racists being a bit noisier about it at the moment. So although your French friend had a shit time on the bus, it is meaningless in support of trying to show that the UK is racist. In fact every survey I have ever seen shows UK as more tolerant than France and most of Europe.

Additionally, your French friend may not have had as shit a time in UK as I have had in France in terms of being treated differently because one is not from around these parts. I could not get an apartment here for a year because I did not have the paperwork that is extremely difficult to get if you are not French. I had to live on my warehouse floor, slowly gathering the documents required to get housing. I could not even apply for social housing. I still don't have the correct paperwork, so I am limited to one landlady, who took a punt on me despite not having the correct papers.

I cannot get the authorities to change the address on my driving license because the current one is an English address. If it had a german address on it, they would have changed it. So the French authorities are forcing me to carry an ID card with false information on it.

And more people dislike muslims here than UK, I am 150% sure of it.

Xenophobia in France is endemic and laced through the entire fabric of the country.

 

[Bob McC]

You cannot be 150% sure of anything.

 

[stevec67]

There are more racists and nationalists in France than the UK.

Possibly.

So although your French friend had a shit time on the bus, it is meaningless in support of trying to show that the UK is racist.

No it's not meaningless, it shows that the UK is racist, whether France is too or not.

Additionally, your French friend may not have had as shit a time in UK as I have had in France in terms of being treated differently because one is not from around these parts. I could not get an apartment here for a year because I did not have the paperwork.

Yeah, the French love their bureaucracy. The myth that only the Brits follow the rules is just that, a myth. The French just *love* their rules. As long as they only apply to everybody else.