1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Double standards reach new depths in British courts

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Phil K, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. Phil K

    Phil K New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The politically correct control the courts in Britain, countless islamists get ridiculously considerate treatment, even though many are open terrorists.
    Ah but - The Guardian and its readers are on their side against their own people (while they deny being anything of the sort) but will demand over-the-top action against anyone who they deem to be "racist/islamophobic/sexist/homophobic" or being critical of anyone who isn't whatever they're hung up on at that moment. The ranting and demanding marches against white supremacists for what the islamist fanatic did in Tolouse last week is a fine example of what these people are like.
    The latest chapter in this story is currently doing the rounds in Britain :-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
    Here we have a student saying something absolutely stupid. And offensive, idiotic, moronic, reprehensible. BUT the self-righteous self-important brigade demanded action. And these being the same people who insist that a muslim bigot demanding and defending mass murder is only using his right of free expression, they're only his opinions, they say.....but this admittedly stupid kid has been JAILED for 2 months and his life DESTROYED by the politically correct vermin, and their tame judges.
    The dope should have had his ars* kicked, no doubt. But PRISON for a moment of stupidity ? How many of us have said something when we've had a drink and an hour later cringe with embarrassment for saying something you don't even believe (especially about this case - the Muamba case. Everyone who went out for a drink on Saturday night were horrified and hoped the lad came out of it OK as he seems to be doing. This idiotic ruling will do colossal damage to that good work)
    The net is ALIVE with muslim fanatics living uninvited in the likes of Britain posting offensive extremism - AND NOTHING IS DONE
    PC double standards and hypocrisy are out of control, and now standard in British courts.
    This stupid brat should have been ticked off at the door of his student accommodation, and no further.
    Muslim extremists don't even get that.
    It's a politically correct 1984 in 2012.
     
  2. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Deserved it and got it .
    Sensible sentence of 2 months which means he will be home in one month .
     
  3. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,335
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Comeuppance duly delivered. If that upsets the "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells" crowd, so much the better.
     
    ryanm34 and (deleted member) like this.
  4. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Phil is from Scotland in Northumberland . Most they ever get up there is a bit of rustling .This must be a bit of a shock to him .
    Speaking , Twitter , Big City .
     
  5. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It isn't so much the double standards that makes me angry, it's the attack on free speech.

    Liam Stacey made an offensive and tasteless comment public, but to sentence him to 56 days was ridiculously vindictive. It's as if we didn't already have overcrowded prisons too.

    Here's another report from the Telegraph.
     
    ryanm34 and (deleted member) like this.
  6. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,540
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    We don't know what he said, that is part of the problem. Certainly the clip in the telegraph is not worth a prison sentence. As I understand it the person has to be trying to incite violence or hatred which leads to violence so presumably some other stuff was said which for whatever reason we have not heard of.

    I know certainly in Scotland if race or religious hatred is part of another crime, that is violence caused by such hatred, then the criminal is supposed to receive a worse criminal sentence than if the crime was just the crime and that does seem fair enough.

    However we should remember that people got 4 year sentences for putting up invitations for people to meet and riot when they were drunk during the English riots - invitations which did not lead to riots or looting in themselves. Hence we are possibly just seeing a more punitive culture - indeed that has been increasing for over a decade now.

    Finally regarding race, this article suggest that non white people are more likely to receive a longer prison sentence for the same offence than a white person for certain crimes.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/25/ethnic-variations-jail-sentences-study
     
  7. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can't help suspecting the huge amount of media coverage regarding Muamba's condition and the public interest therein, had some bearing on the sentence.

    I can't say I'm comfortable with the laws addressing racial and religious hatred. It has the feeling of an experimental attempt doomed to failure.

    Are internet users being judged and sentenced differently from real life offenders? We don't know what was said by the boy, but 21 yr olds are notoriously anti-everything and often just attention seekers. It's harsh sentencing for a boy like that when you hear worse in the street any day of the week in the company of people his age and in fact in the company of any age. Next thing you know they'll be adding sound to CCTV in order to catch out anyone anywhere who utters anything rebellious or silly.
     
    ryanm34 and (deleted member) like this.
  8. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think we can guess at what he said. Here are more examples from the Telegraph. I'd be deeply ashamed of him if I were related to him.

    The political and court reaction to the rioters was completely out of proportion in many cases. One invitation to riot resulted in a "riot" to which only the police turned up. Crime is just as politically correct now under a supposedly Conservative govt as it ever was under Labour. If a person conspires to cause a crime, then that person should be punished, but what price free speech? I don't think expressing our opinions, even if those opinions are tasteless or offensive, should ever land us in court or even bring us to the attention of the police.

    The courts should be 100% colour blind. Anything else is completely unacceptable.
     
  9. ryanm34

    ryanm34 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not sure what the limits on speech should be. I have heard compelling arguments for and against freer speech.

    However an imprisonment for a tweet, especially for a racist tweet is ridiculous.
     
  10. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There shouldn't be ANY limits on free speech or it's not free speech at all.
     
  11. ryanm34

    ryanm34 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have never heard a compelling argument for completely free speech. The most strident defenders of "free speech" still support libel and defamation laws.

    Those are limits on "free speech" no country in the world guarantees "free speech" in that context.

    Rights to feer speech than is currently enjoyed by most europeans is IMO desirable.

    But the best argument that was ever presented to me against it. Was that it was easy for me a white middle class woman to argue against a kind of protection I would not enjoy. I would not suffer from the revocation of such protections.
     
  12. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, sort of fair enough, I'll make an exception for libel and defamation. Reputations deserve to be protected from malicious gossip and unfounded accusations, but a person should still be free to gossip and voice unfounded accusations on the understanding that they risk being charged and sentenced if found guilty. (Actually, an exception I'd make is in 'Holocaust denial,' because before long all the witnesses will have died and we will only have photographic and historical records to go on. Holocaust deniers will be able to spread conspiracy type theories and the gullible will believe them.) Any other attacks on free speech are off limits.

    I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you be more specific?
     
  13. Iolo

    Iolo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Double standards reach new depths in British courts

    Vacant racist ignorance rants on. What's new?
     
  14. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is this just a random rant or did you have someone specific in mind?
     
  15. ryanm34

    ryanm34 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then you are not really free to do it are you? no more than you are free to murder or to rape?

    There I would disagree with you it seems arrogant to presume that a government has a monopoly on historical fact. Let those who deny the holocaust present their case. I have every confidence in it being demolished.

    What about shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater? Or Publishing falsehoods about life saving vaccines that ultimately lead to children deaths from preventable diseases because their parents were afraid they might become autistic? Or the speech of groups like the westbro baptist church. There are many situations in which compelling arguments can be made against "free speech".

    It applied in an argument about restrictions on hate speech. A white woman in Ireland is very unlikely to find herself the victim of racial hate speech. Therefore it is easy for me, a white woman, to argue against a form of protection I will not enjoy. It is poorer immigrants who are most likely to be victims of it and they feel such laws offer them a measure of protection.
     
    alexa and (deleted member) like this.
  16. Iolo

    Iolo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have a saying about caps and fits. Volunteering? I never rant, by the way - it is too American for me.
     
  17. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most of us haven't the slightest desire or inclination to murder or rape, and anyone who does should of course face court action if charged as such, because rape and murder are never, ever acceptable. However, any of us might find our political views unacceptable to the state at some stage in the future. We can hardly guarantee that future governments will be benign, can we? Comparing the criminalisation of free speech and the criminalisation of murder and rape is inappropriate, and imo (*)(*)(*)(*)ed dangerous. A slippery slope towards a totalitarian state.

    The holocaust denial argument is demolished now, but in the future when all the witnesses have died, I'm not sure it would be. Who knows? We all know that evidence can be fabricated and holocaust deniers could easily make an argument emotive and powerful enough to appeal to the gullible, then these denials will grow stronger and, for some, it will become a question of who to believe. And of course governments don't have a monopoly on historical fact! However, I'd really rather see all political arguments demolished by reason rather than see any driven underground.
    But not a single one in political issues. Not one. What did you think of Maya Anne Evans or Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Evans being denied their right to free speech? And the vaccines issue is a whole different argument we can discuss if you want to. Two of my children did not have the MMR vaccine at the officially recommended times and only partly in response to what Andrew Wakefield publicised.
    And there I'd disagree with you. I think we should all be free to express our opinions, but I would hope that good taste manners and basic decency prevail. If it doesn't "breach of the peace" laws should deal with any physical action taken. Criminalising free speech simply drives "racial hate speech" underground so that these arguments cannot be demolished, but the mere expression of the "I hate whoever [be it another race, the queen, a politician, a neighbour] for whatever reason should not be a criminal offence.
     
  18. tamora

    tamora New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the cap fits cuts both ways, but no one ever owns up to ranting. :wink:
     
  19. ryanm34

    ryanm34 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have stated that I do not know what limits I think are appropriate. The argument I gave above stopped my liberal rant on the benefits of "free speech" in its tracks and I have not yet squared that argument with my support of free speech. I do not know what is appropriate or not. I know that imprisonment for a racist tweet is wrong but I am not sure how far or where the line should be drawn.
     
  20. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,540
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    tamora, holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK. Michael Howard, himself a Jew, was the person who chose not to make it so when many European countries chose otherwise. His reason was that it would make holocaust deniers into martyrs.

    You can already read all the holocaust revisionism and denial theories on the internet. To me it is wrong that Historians should by law not be allowed to do their research on everything.

    The Holocaust killed about 11 million civilians. Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Poles, Gays, Political dissidents etc

    I am totally against academics being banned from writing their theories. PC is not for them and they are well able to slam someone who writes tripe so I am glad that holocaust denial is not a crime in this country - would make you an outcast, true enough, but is not a crime.

    Link to someone describing the loss of Poles in the holocaust http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/poland.htm
     
    ryanm34 and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page