More people arrested in the UK over......a Joke.

a reply to: sapien82

Scottish law has been different from about 1707, way before devolution.

Scots Law - Wiki

a reply to: sapien82
Sorry mate, carpy is correct, you guys make up all your own laws under your own separate legal system, and have done for hundreds of years. Anything wrong legally in Scotland is the fault of Scottish people...nothing to do with the rest of the UK.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Try telling that to Krankie Sturgeon and the SNP.....

a reply to: oldcarpy
Pmsl!
They are just lying to the Scottish people half the time, blame England for everything even though more money per capita is spent on Scottish people, and they can set their own laws/policies to spend it.
I'm sick of the whining by the SNP, leave the UK then, do your own thing in the EU, I wouldn't care anymore, Britain would survive well enough without Scotland.

you are suggesting that there are vast differences between our hate speech laws ?

"Since the Union with England Act 1707, Scotland has shared a legislature with England and Wales. Scotland retained a fundamentally different legal system from that south of the border, but the Union exerted English influence upon Scots law"

I cant see any as they both derived from the Public Order act 1986

we just have a framework in place for independent review of the hate speech laws which opens up consultation for new legislation , but the fact is that people can still be locked up for hate speech as determined by a legal system that uses subjective states of consciousness in place of objective fact in both England and Scotland .

There was no such thing as hate speech in 1707 , as plenty of us would be in jail for uttering the phrase sassenach!


Honestly mate your back at it again saying im moaning about England , but im not im saying our collective governments are using logical fallacy in our judicial systems , im not blaming england for anything , you're just at it again with your divisive pish!

a reply to: sapien82

Tests for hate speech are always going to have to be subjective. How can they be objective? Even murder can have a subjective element.

a reply to: sapien82
If someone was giving me hate speech I'd tell him to # off or I'll bang your #ing face in, and if he continued I'd be fighting. That's how I roll in real life and pretty much everyone I know is the same. It's how my society functions, fear of violence if you become a prick. So don't be a prick.

If someone is a prick online and get some 1 month jail time or whatever I don't give a #...if matey with the nazi dog did in front of a Jew I'd expect the Jew to react the same, 'stop or I'll knock you out you #ing prick'.
Free speech my arse, I've never fallen foul of the law because I'm generally not a prick to people.
...but when I am I'm basically asking for a fight.

a reply to: oldcarpy

But how can offense be proven in court, its hearsay

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: sapien82
If someone was giving me hate speech I'd tell him to # off or I'll bang your #ing face in, and if he continued I'd be fighting. That's how I roll in real life and pretty much everyone I know is the same. It's how my society functions, fear of violence if you become a prick. So don't be a prick.

If someone is a prick online and get some 1 month jail time or whatever I don't give a #...if matey with the nazi dog did in front of a Jew I'd expect the Jew to react the same, 'stop or I'll knock you out you #ing prick'.
Free speech my arse, I've never fallen foul of the law because I'm generally not a prick to people.
...but when I am I'm basically asking for a fight.

Watch out folks, we got a tough guy over here.

You hurt my feels with your words, lol.

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: sapien82
If someone was giving me hate speech I'd tell him to # off or I'll bang your #ing face in, and if he continued I'd be fighting. That's how I roll in real life and pretty much everyone I know is the same. It's how my society functions, fear of violence if you become a prick. So don't be a prick.

If someone is a prick online and get some 1 month jail time or whatever I don't give a #...if matey with the nazi dog did in front of a Jew I'd expect the Jew to react the same, 'stop or I'll knock you out you #ing prick'.
Free speech my arse, I've never fallen foul of the law because I'm generally not a prick to people.
...but when I am I'm basically asking for a fight.

Watch out folks, we got a tough guy over here.

You hurt my feels with your words, lol.

Oh behave lol, I'm just saying it as it is for me, no bravado just honesty, I have the scars on my face to prove it...I'll never be abused and bend down for anyone, I'd rather lose the fight.
...it is how my society is here, we aren't like London all carrying knives, we aren't like the US with easy gun access, so generally it is fists when someone is being a prick.
Being a prick is basically asking for a fight in my parts...nothing about being a tough guy but how my society functions.

EDIT
My point was more about if the law thinks someone has been a prick online and gives them a lame fine, or a couple of weeks in jail, then I don't care because if they'd had the guts to commit whatever insulting thing they did in public they probably would have got a beating.

a reply to: sapien82

Course it can. And - "Hearsay" does not mean what you think it means:

Hearsay - Wiki

a reply to: oldcarpy
The way I interpret the law in England and Wales is basically don't be a prick because someone will either want to punch me in the face or make a complaint to the police. It ain't oppression in my opinion, it's just not being a prick.
I don't actually care about the law, I'm just not a prick to other people because I like my teeth, my implants cost a fortune lol.

Two things. Hate speech laws in England and Wales are broadly similar in Scotland. While Scotland has its own judiciary and odd quirks there is a great deal of alignment with the rest of the UK.

Nazi dog and all that. This is the summary of the court hearing made in a Scottish court and referencing a pan-UK piece of legislation, aka the Communications Act 2003, within which the case was heard. Mark Meechan was not prosecuted for a hate crime.

If you read details of the case you can see it was a bit more than "just a bit of fun". It was offensive and anti-Semitic and Meechan got what he deserved in the form of a fine and not a custodial sentence.

This is the relevant section of the Act Legislation UK

EDIT to add... This is the CPS Guide to Hate Crime which is quite informative.

a reply to: paraphi

Thank you. I had not read that before. I am surprised that more was not made of the "freedom of speech" argument by the defence, so was the judge, it seems. But the judgement is very balanced and makes good sense.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Sorry Im using the term hearsay not in its legaleese sense, but in terms of , its their opinion vs someone elses
because offense is opinion and not an objective fact
not objective , highly subjective , and ultimately comes down to the EGO being the victim and the rational human sitting in there somewhere dormant , while their ego has its day in court !

do you see what I mean , they basically cant prove that someone was offended other than taking their word for it !

what factual evidence can you collect in order prove that someone was offended , other than their own testimony
he / she said A,B,C and that offended me deeply !
The thing is with offense, people can just claim they are offended in order to put someone in jail !
how easy would it be to feign offense ?

a reply to: sapien82

The prosecution needs to present evidence and it is for the Court to decide guilt or otherwise based on that evidence. That's the way our justice system works. Got any better ideas?

If you read the summary of the judgement in the Nazi dog case, it does set out what needs to be proven and how etc. In that case, he did not go to jail.

a reply to: oldcarpy

yes the better idea would be to not put people on trial for offending someones ego !

we are not children , adults tried in court are meant to be reasonable human beings , who are capable of rational thought and controlling their emotional states !

not pedantic children who react to everything that falls onto their ears!

when someone calls you a # to your face , whats the first thing that happens ?
Your ego jumps to your defense, and you may think " who you calling a #, then say it "
alternatively the reasonable thinking person , will go "hang on a minute" that persons trying to get a rise out of me by taunting me and goading me into a reaction!

when someone is offended , what is really offended ? you the conscious human being , or your ego?

why did marcus meechan say that , because he has an ego , and wants attention !
why did he get taken to court, because the victim he "offended" , their ego was offended

words , can be harmful to those with weak will and fragile ego !
but ultimately words do not cause pain , C-fibres in the brain in neurons do not fire , when words are projected to you!
do they bring up memories of painful events, possibly , but words do not cause anyone physical harm!

and nor should anyones words be reason to lock them up , since hate speech causing others to act , is a slippery slope fallacy

a reply to: sapien82

The crime is not for offending someone, it is for being "grossly offensive", which is entirely different.

a reply to: oldcarpy

well thats where I dont agree with our legal system , because how can a legal system claim that anything is grossly offensive and be arbiters of moral law , when our own government are grossly offensive in their blatant crimes against the people !

I dont agree with it , and I dont support that piece of legislation its ridiculous

a reply to: oldcarpy

ok so say we accept that its law and that we can try people for being grossly offensive

in law , we require corpus delicti , the body of the crime

and for that to be , we need Injury , Loss , or Harm , where is the injury loss or harm in being grossly offensive, what gets harmed? someones fragile ego ?