Be very careful who you offend

[vinty]

Maybe sammyinit thinks you do not have the right not be burgled, or not to be a victim of assault, or not to be murdered.
In fact, we do not have the right not to be a victim of any crime!

All the above are physical crimes against the person, you can't equate what someone says with crimes against the person.
What about "sticks and stones" and all that

 

[vinty]

Enoch nailed it years ago.

 

[SirGalahad]

Enoch nailed it years ago.View attachment 138745

For democracy you need a well informed, well educated and healthy electorate.

As to Enoch, put his River of blood speech to the side.

To quote

As minister of health from 1960 to 1963, Powell said no to a public inquiry into the origins of the Distaval (thalidomide) atrocity and no to every request made by a delegation of affected parents in January 1963. Powell said no to immediately setting up a drug-testing centre, as “anyone taking an aspirin puts himself at risk”. He refused to even set eyes on a thalidomide child. He said no to giving a statement afterwards: “no need to bring the press into this”.

He definitely nailed those thalidomide sufferers.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

All the above are physical crimes against the person, you can't equate what someone says with crimes against the person.
What about "sticks and stones" and all that

So if I steal your money, electronically, or your identity, etc. it is not a crime?
Why? Because it is not physical?
If I verbally abuse someone, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?
If I choose not to pay my TV licence, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?
If I plan to commit a crime, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Please explain exactly what the hate crime was in this (Meecham) case.

Also, would that French cartoon of Mo be a hate crime if it had been in Britain now?
A lot of people were definitely offended.

 

[SammyInnit]

Also, would that French cartoon of Mo be a hate crime if it had been in Britain now?

Yes.

 

[transam]

So if I steal your money, electronically, or your identity, etc. it is not a crime?
Why? Because it is not physical?
If I verbally abuse someone, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?
If I choose not to pay my TV licence, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?
If I plan to commit a crime, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?

Way r bee mis quotes , reads some thing into what some one said (wrongly) jumps to conclusions which are always wrong

Takes what some says out of context (again) It is what he does

It is what he is

 

[vinty]

For democracy you need a well informed, well educated and healthy electorate.

As to Enoch, put his River of blood speech to the side.

To quote

As minister of health from 1960 to 1963, Powell said no to a public inquiry into the origins of the Distaval (thalidomide) atrocity and no to every request made by a delegation of affected parents in January 1963. Powell said no to immediately setting up a drug-testing centre, as “anyone taking an aspirin puts himself at risk”. He refused to even set eyes on a thalidomide child. He said no to giving a statement afterwards: “no need to bring the press into this”.

He definitely nailed those thalidomide sufferers.

Yes I agree he was wrong on that occasion but even a broken clock is right twice a day,

For democracy you need a well informed, well educated and healthy electorate.

As to Enoch, put his River of blood speech to the side.

To quote

As minister of health from 1960 to 1963, Powell said no to a public inquiry into the origins of the Distaval (thalidomide) atrocity and no to every request made by a delegation of affected parents in January 1963. Powell said no to immediately setting up a drug-testing centre, as “anyone taking an aspirin puts himself at risk”. He refused to even set eyes on a thalidomide child. He said no to giving a statement afterwards: “no need to bring the press into this”.

He definitely nailed those thalidomide sufferers

He was obviously wrong on that occasion but in his defence he probably thought he was right at the time although on later reflection he must have realised he made a big mistake.
However as posted above even a broken clock is right twice a day, Powell seemed to have the foresight to see the direction Britain was going in.

 

[Ihavenojob]

So next season when West Ham play Millwall & the after match pleasantries get under way with opposing fans beating 7 shades of sh it out of each other, will they be charged with hate crimes?

 

[vinty]

So if I steal your money, electronically, or your identity, etc. it is not a crime?
Why? Because it is not physical?
If I verbally abuse someone, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?
If I choose not to pay my TV licence, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?
If I plan to commit a crime, it is not a crime? Because it is not physical?

You are all over the place, in your OP you said Murder, Burglary and assault and I replied that they are physical crimes, now in the post above you are off on a tangent about identity theft, stealing money and not paying your TV licence you have got me confused.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

You are all over the place, in your OP you said Murder, Burglary and assault and I replied that they are physical crimes, now in the post above you are off on a tangent about identity theft, stealing money and not paying your TV licence you have got me confused.

It is not only physical crimes against a person that are crimes against a person. There are other crimes that are not against a person that are also crimes.
There are crimes that are considered against a person but a victim is not necessarily required.
Are you still confused?

 

[Notch7]

You are all over the place, in your OP you said Murder, Burglary and assault and I replied that they are physical crimes, now in the post above you are off on a tangent about identity theft, stealing money and not paying your TV licence you have got me confused.

He likes to change the argument to suit his twisted narrative.

 

[motorbiking]

Please explain exactly what the hate crime was in this (Meecham) case.

Also, would that French cartoon of Mo be a hate crime if it had been in Britain now?
A lot of people were definitely offended.

It didn't need to be seen as a hate crime..
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

He likes to change the argument to suit his twisted narrative.

He likes to post nonsense comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion.
I sometimes think his primary purpose is to prevent sensible discussion with a long term view of having the thread locked.

 

[motorbiking]

This physical vs non-physical thing is a bit "playground law" - its misguided.. (btw TV licensing is a close as it can be to decriminalised given prosecution guidance is absolute discharge if you pay up).

The two fundamental concepts of Criminal law are Actus Reus "The guilty act" and Mens Rea "the guilty mind". This really short article is worth 5 mins to read, if you actually want to be able to comment with the most basic of understanding : https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea

It is easy to think that incitement to commit a crime and actually commuting are on different scales, but history shows us that incitement can be vastly more powerful than the act. If I breach bad things to 100 people and they go out and chop people's heads off - there is a really strong argument that they wouldn't have done that had I not encouraged them.