Death of free speech in the UK.

Robert said:
He's doing something now but I'm not sure apologising for eight year old "controversies" is too helpful either:
Jeremy Corbyn apologises for hosting 2010 Holocaust event
Click to expand...
Nope. Wrong Wrong Wrong. Apologising might work in "polite society" but it doesn't really work because that's not what he is up against. Apology is just a sign of weakness and will embolden the critics. If there is anything he should have learned by now it's attack the critics. Dismantle them and make them chase themselves in circles to support their accusations - make the critics look childish and petty - as they are.
 
Robert said:
Complainants in rape cases are entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and it is an offence to publish their identity.
Click to expand...
This is designed to increase the number of complaints - real or not. Paving slabs on the road to hell. Not making any judgements on this case in particular, but whenever you shield people in this way you invariably encourage bad actors. I guess the opposite side of the argument is that making victims liable for their accusations shields the perpetrators but I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant and if you don't think accusing someone is worth the hassle then we all get to use the resources of the system for better purposes.

However, if you are protected from being named then how can you benefit from your victim status? However, if you are illegally named then your victim status is at once advertised AND elevated!
 
redrumloa said:
If it was extended to the accused I'd accept the argument a little bit more. I still think there should not be a blanket protection for women. In too many incidents women make false allegations simply as a weapon to harm men or to get a financial windfall. Even if a man is found not guilty, such a charge will follow him the rest of his life. Men should have equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's been properly studied but I wouldn't be surprised if women tended not to prosecute men they feared and felt freer to prosecute men they had no fear of - and that's before legal protections. What motivates people to seek legal redress for crimes is complicated, but, of incidents that I have personal knowledge of the majority of "victims" (and I'm putting it in quotes here because the word runs the gamut of things that where even people who experience such things have differing opinions on the victimhood involved) want to move on and put things behind them but are willing to consider the hassle and trouble of going to court if they feel it is for the public good -

I kind of do have a point I could chase down, but I'm too busy at the moment to take the proper time for such a delicate subject.
 
Not the best thread for this, but since the conversation is going on here...

Robert said:
I understand why the accuser's identity should be kept secret - after all, "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "didn't happen" - but the same courtesy should be extended to the accused at least until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

Indiana Woman Arrested for Allegedly Reporting False Assault in ‘Rape Fantasy’

Maggie-Wallace-Madison-County-Sheriffs-Office-640x480.jpg


But police said they discovered a 17-year-old boy who told them that Wallace had contacted him and engaged in correspondence with him using an app called Whisper. He told the police that Wallace engineered a “rape fantasy” in which he was to meet her in the park.

Investigators also discovered the entire conversation between the two preserved on the boy’s cell phone.

When confronted about the boy’s evidence, Wallace denied her part in the plot. But police said she eventually admitted that she did not tell the truth about being raped. Wallace was immediately arrested for one count of false informing, a class A misdemeanor.

While it is ridiculous she is only being charged with a misdemeanor, at least she is named and shamed. If this was the UK, her identity would be protected.
 
redrumloa said:
While it is ridiculous she is only being charged with a misdemeanor, at least she is named and shamed. If this was the UK, her identity would be protected.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of lesser sentences in general, especially for lesser crimes, and we need to stop having such broad categories of crime - if we take discretion away from judges then we need to put it back in somewhere else.
However, if sentences were more reasonable, people would be more willing to press the charges when they were justified. Any regularity of handing out misdemeanours for false accusations helps keep the system clean - but a lot of these sexual "crimes" seem like they could be better handled by counselling the pair together. One of the big problems with sex crimes in general is that you are basically punished for life once an accusation is made - subsequent findings don't necessarily left the stain.

That is - I think misdemeanour should be enough to discourage false accusers - however, it doesn't do too much to repair damage to the accused.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
That is - I think misdemeanour should be enough to discourage false accusers - however, it doesn't do too much to repair damage to the accused.
Click to expand...

And at least in the US, a conviction of rape is a felony. To me a proven false accusation of rape should carry the same sentence as actual rape. The legal system should have balance and gender parity.
 
So these are the convictions that Tommy Robinson was jeopardising with his "free speech" stunts. The irony of his idiotic approach is lost on most of his supporters:
Huddersfield grooming: Twenty guilty of campaign of rape and abuse
_103925253_huddersfield_grooming_gang_1.jpg

The men, all from Yorkshire, went by nicknames including "Dracula", "Bully", "Beastie" and "Nurse"

Twenty men have been found guilty of being part of a grooming gang that raped and abused girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.
The men were convicted of more than 120 offences against 15 girls.
Victims were plied with drink and drugs and then "used and abused at will" in a seven year "campaign of rape and abuse" between 2004 and 2011.
At Leeds Crown Court, the ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life with a minimum of 18 years.
Other members of the gang were jailed for between five and 18 years.
Details of the men's convictions and sentences can only now be published after reporting restrictions on a series of trials were partially lifted.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Everyone knows that immigrants and the poor people who can't afford to move away into gated communities simply don't deserve to live in neighbourhoods free of criminal gangs.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


"Robinson" may not be as smart as he thinks he is but he isn't completely stupid (unlike many of his gullible supporters).
He knew exactly what he was doing - and risking.
 
The usual suspects will continue to ignore the obvious.

Man interrogated by police for liking a ‘transphobic’ tweet

Mr Miller, who used to be a policeman, says an officer told him he was investigating reports of a hate crime. ‘Cop said he was in possession of 30 tweets by me,’ he recalled on Twitter. ‘I asked if any contained criminal material. He said “No.” ‘I asked if any came close to being criminal and he read me a limerick. Honestly. A limerick. A cop read me a limerick over the phone.’ After telling the PC he did not write the limerick, he reportedly said: ‘Ah. But you liked it and promoted it.’

He concluded: ‘It’s not a crime, but it will be recorded as a hate incident.’ Harry said the conversation turned ‘incredibly sinister’ as the officer tried to probe his ‘thinking’. He said: ‘The cop told me that he needed to speak with me because, even though I’d committed no crime whatsoever, he needed (and I quote) “to check my THINKING!” Seriously. Honestly. ‘Finally, he lectured me. Said, “Sometimes, a woman’s brain grows a man’s body in the womb and that is what transgender is.” You can imagine my response. ‘Lastly, he told me that I needed to watch my words more carefully or I was at risk of being sacked by the company for hate speech.’ Harry says he is actually the chairman of his company and later told The Spectator how the incident made him feel like a ‘criminal’.

‘I just find this all unbelievable and sinister,’ he said. ‘I’ve broken no law, the police don’t suggest that I’ve done anything illegal. ‘But here they are, investigating me for tweeting a limerick. It’s mad, completely mad.’
 
Tommy Robinson in fresh contempt of court proceedings
Attorney general concludes it is in the public interest to bring proceedings against anti-Islam activist over video filmed outside grooming trial

Tommy Robinson could face up to two years in prison after the attorney general ruled he should face fresh contempt of court charges.

Geoffrey Cox concluded it was in the public interest to bring new proceedings against the anti-Islam activist, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, over a video he recorded outside a grooming trial at Leeds Crown Court.

Robinson, 35, was jailed for 13 months in May last year after he filmed people involved in a criminal trial and broadcast the footage on social media.

The footage, lasting about an hour, was watched 250,000 times within hours of being posted on Facebook. The four men on trial were later convicted of gang-raping a teenage girl.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
A thing of beauty. Can it get any more ridiculous? I really don't know. The number of times I'd already thought he shark had been jumped...
Click to expand...

It really is, but more frightening it seems the US and Canada are not all that far behind. The US at least has a Constitution, but even that has been under attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top