ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th February 2019, 01:08 AM   #241
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to behave like a twat, especially if it infringes on the safety or rights of others.
Arresting someone for "hate speech" separates a parent from his children (assuming Europeans still breed). You're willing to separate a child from her parent because the parent hurt someone's feelings?
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 01:38 AM   #242
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,743
Originally Posted by baron View Post
There is no mention of harassment in that link.

The right to free speech does not and cannot infringe on anybody else's rights by definition. Contrary to ignorant opinion, in the UK there is no right not to be offended. If you think otherwise please illustrate with an example and state precisely what human right is being infringed (here is a list for easy selection).

I suggest you read the summary of the court judgment linked in the second post.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 01:53 AM   #243
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 355
Alison Chabloz has been convicted in the UK on the basis of a song she performed mocking the holocaust. What happened to the British tradition of biting satire from performers such as Monty Python and magazines such as Punch ?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12299
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 02:03 AM   #244
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,946
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
Alison Chabloz has been convicted in the UK on the basis of a song she performed mocking the holocaust. What happened to the British tradition of biting satire from performers such as Monty Python and magazines such as Punch ?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12299
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting her songs were satirical? She might claim that as a (pathetic, imo) defence, but I can't see any satire in suggesting that the Holocaust was "a bunch of lies" and referring to Auschwitz as a "theme park".

Meanwhile Chabloz described herself as a 'Holocaust revisionist'.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 02:14 AM   #245
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
Alison Chabloz has been convicted in the UK on the basis of a song she performed mocking the holocaust. What happened to the British tradition of biting satire from performers such as Monty Python and magazines such as Punch ?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12299
Chabloz claiming her anti-semitism was "satire" doesn't make it so.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 02:20 AM   #246
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,730
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
Alison Chabloz has been convicted in the UK on the basis of a song she performed mocking the holocaust.
Correction: she was convicted as a holocaust denier. The mere denial of the holocaust has now been ruled a crime by the British courts.

Quote:
According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism organization, the decision sets a precedent that Holocaust denial is ‘grossly offensive’ and therefore illegal.
https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Landm...-denial-580589

Could this have legal repercussions for ISF which has a holocaust denial thread?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 19th February 2019 at 02:22 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 02:55 AM   #247
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post

Could this have legal repercussions for ISF which has a holocaust denial thread?
From what I can tell, all the UK members toe the line. You can just smell the fear in their comments. They're afraid of getting a knock on the door and being separated from their children (assuming they have any) just for expressing the wrong opinion. I wouldn't want to live like that.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 03:13 AM   #248
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I suggest you read the summary of the court judgment linked in the second post.
I read it at the time. Courts can and do make incorrect decisions. This was an example. Unless you believe that criminalisation of telling the truth about Islam is in line with the concept of freedom of expression you already know this. Can I refer you now back to my original question.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 03:17 AM   #249
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by baron View Post
No, it's me disagreeing with this again, because as I've explained, the notion of 'consequences' when talking of freedom of speech clearly relates to those resulting from state intervention. Consequences in more general terminology can result from literally anything you do, from saying hello to threatening murder to scratching your arse.
The point the quote is trying to make is that a person cannot claim freedom of speech as protection from any and all consequences resulting from what has been said.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 03:25 AM   #250
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,358
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Fair enough, but most people believe that a thief can steal 'your' money from the bank, a falsehood perpetrated continually by the banks and the mainstream media.



It's entirely the bank's responsibility, as you no doubt know. The bank should have refunded you and informed the police of the fraud, and the police should have investigated on that basis.
Slightly off topic, but Mitchell and Webb did a good sketch on this subject on their radio show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 03:25 AM   #251
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by baron View Post
There is no mention of harassment in that link.

The right to free speech does not and cannot infringe on anybody else's rights by definition. Contrary to ignorant opinion, in the UK there is no right not to be offended. If you think otherwise please illustrate with an example and state precisely what human right is being infringed (here is a list for easy selection).
That lists where freedom of speech is limited to protect other's rights;

"Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights."

and

"protect health or morals
protect the rights and reputations of other people"

and

"An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred."

There are laws, such as the Telecoms Act, where words alone can be illegal because they are grossly offensive. There was an example of a you tube video that had a dog and Hitler salutes and a voice over that resulted in a conviction.

So, there is a right not to be offended, but it is reserved for something that is grossly offensive.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 04:30 AM   #252
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That lists where freedom of speech is limited to protect other's rights;

"Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights."

and

"protect health or morals
protect the rights and reputations of other people"

and

"An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred."
Yes, as I've said, these things do not legally fall under free speech.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
There are laws, such as the Telecoms Act, where words alone can be illegal because they are grossly offensive. There was an example of a you tube video that had a dog and Hitler salutes and a voice over that resulted in a conviction.

So, there is a right not to be offended, but it is reserved for something that is grossly offensive.
It's actually reserved for offence under hate crime law, so targeting people or groups because of their religion, ethnicity, orientation, etc. And sometimes, yes, it is misused and the wrong verdicts are handed down, just like the wrong verdicts are handed down in other eventualities.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 06:12 AM   #253
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
From what I can tell, all the UK members toe the line. You can just smell the fear in their comments. They're afraid of getting a knock on the door and being separated from their children (assuming they have any) just for expressing the wrong opinion. I wouldn't want to live like that.
Your deranged fantasies are your own problem.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 10:02 PM   #254
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,575
It is a right to stoke hatred against a group. No one has right to not be hated.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2019, 03:10 AM   #255
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Your deranged fantasies are your own problem.
It is a spectacularly deranged claim.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2019, 03:15 AM   #256
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The right to free speech does not and cannot infringe on anybody else's rights by definition.
The link you provide below contradicts your claim. It states "Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights."

Quote:
Contrary to ignorant opinion, in the UK there is no right not to be offended. If you think otherwise please illustrate with an example and state precisely what human right is being infringed (here is a list for easy selection).
I just showed how that is wrong. I gave the Telecoms Act, which gives us the right not to be grossly offended and a specific incident as examples.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2019, 03:40 AM   #257
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The link you provide below contradicts your claim. It states "Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights."
Which is why I asked for an example of the rights that can be infringed by freedom of speech, in your view. Which ones are they?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I just showed how that is wrong. I gave the Telecoms Act, which gives us the right not to be grossly offended and a specific incident as examples.
You know as well as I do that those two words don't accurately represent what the law is. Such prosecutions are rare and must involve other aspects such as threat, harassment or other malicious elements. This explains it more fully (and bear in mind this is the Telecoms act, not an overarching piece of legislation that covers all speech).
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2019, 05:49 AM   #258
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,946
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The link you provide below contradicts your claim. It states "Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights."



I just showed how that is wrong. I gave the Telecoms Act, which gives us the right not to be grossly offended and a specific incident as examples.
If wikipedia was involved in any of that then it's inadmissible. They're a bunch of commies
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2019, 06:45 AM   #259
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Which is why I asked for an example of the rights that can be infringed by freedom of speech, in your view. Which ones are they?

You know as well as I do that those two words don't accurately represent what the law is. Such prosecutions are rare and must involve other aspects such as threat, harassment or other malicious elements. This explains it more fully (and bear in mind this is the Telecoms act, not an overarching piece of legislation that covers all speech).
The Telecoms Act is rarely used. Far more common is Breach of the Peace and S38 CJ&L(S)A 2010, which makes threatening, abusive, offensive behaviour likely to cause fear or alarm illegal.

Article 3 of Human Rights legislation includes the right to be free of degrading treatment "...treatment that is extremely humiliating and undignified.... based on the principle of dignity".

By making it illegal to abuse, threaten and be offensive towards me, my right to be free of being degraded and humiliated and to have my dignity preserved, is protected.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 04:48 AM   #260
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,031
Miller's tweets were lawful, High Court rules.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 05:12 AM   #261
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,094
"any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender"

This does seem to be a poor definition. Hate incidents are generally regarded as being because of a person's perceived characteristic. It shouldn't simply be incidental to the incident.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 06:11 AM   #262
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Miller's tweets were lawful, High Court rules.
Good ruling. Being a bigot and an all round git shouldn't be against the law.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 06:32 AM   #263
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
"any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender"

This does seem to be a poor definition. Hate incidents are generally regarded as being because of a person's perceived characteristic. It shouldn't simply be incidental to the incident.
Whether its a poor definition probably depends on what you want to get out of these numbers.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 05:55 AM   #264
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,680
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Miller's tweets were lawful, High Court rules.
And perhaps more to the point, the actions of the police were unlawful.

Quote:
Harry Miller: Police probe into 'transphobic' tweets unlawful
Well, this is good then.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 06:07 AM   #265
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
And perhaps more to the point, the actions of the police were unlawful.







Well, this is good then.
No that's not quite the case, yet. That's really the second part of his legal challenge, the one that they did not uphold but have given leave for him to take to the SC if he wants. At the moment it is still lawful, still part of the police guidelines and so on, what was deemed "unlawful" is how they went about it, i. E. It was disproportionate and interfered with his right to free expression.

We shall have to wait to see if the SC deems the police college guidelines unlawful as they are currently formulated.

On that point I am more conflicted, we know in many types of crimes that there are patterns of behaviour that occur before arrests or a serious crime is committed. Domestic violence is one of these areas. Until quite recently police didn't have ways to record this non criminal but indicative behaviour, and because of that people have been murdered. See: BBC News - Domestic abuse: Killers 'follow eight-stage pattern', study says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49481998

It is always a balance between different rights, and societies constantly change these balances, and of course there will never be a "perfect" solution.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 06:54 AM   #266
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,031
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
And perhaps more to the point, the actions of the police were unlawful.



Well, this is good then.
Yes, I think that point was stressed in articles that came out later. The actions of the police in turning up at this place of work to question him about the tweets were unlawful interference with his right to freedom of expression.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 09:41 AM   #267
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,743
Here’s the full judgment:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC.../2020/225.html
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:36 AM   #268
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Arresting someone for "hate speech" separates a parent from his children (assuming Europeans still breed). You're willing to separate a child from her parent because the parent hurt someone's feelings?
Hateful parents produce hateful children. No one has the right to corrupt the attitudes of the young. Breaking the cycle of hate is the only way to top the BS.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:38 AM   #269
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Correction: she was convicted as a holocaust denier. The mere denial of the holocaust has now been ruled a crime by the British courts.
Good. Someone has to stand up for the Truth.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 10:49 AM   #270
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
From what I can tell, all the UK members toe the line. You can just smell the fear in their comments. They're afraid of getting a knock on the door and being separated from their children (assuming they have any) just for expressing the wrong opinion. I wouldn't want to live like that.
The Holocaust is not an "opinion". It happened. Period. The only people who deny that are people whose ideologies are inclined to repeat it. Society has no duty to respect those so-called "opinions".
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 11:04 AM   #271
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That lists where freedom of speech is limited to protect other's rights;

"Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights."

and

"protect health or morals
protect the rights and reputations of other people"

and

"An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred."

There are laws, such as the Telecoms Act, where words alone can be illegal because they are grossly offensive. There was an example of a you tube video that had a dog and Hitler salutes and a voice over that resulted in a conviction.
I was just thinking about the Count Dankula situation. "It's just a joke" or "It's just a stupid pet trick" or "It's just a meme" are not defenses to being grossly offensive by teaching a dog to Hitler salute when you say "Gas the Jews", which is one of the things Dankula acutally did.

His conviction was richly deserved.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 11:07 AM   #272
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is a right to stoke hatred against a group. No one has right to not be hated.
Hating someone and openly, publicly encouraging hate are two different things. You have the right to hate whoever you want in the privacy of your own thoughts and only so long as your hate stays there.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28

Last edited by ChristianProgressive; 16th February 2020 at 11:17 AM.
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2020, 12:04 PM   #273
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I don't think the judgement on the guidelines will be overturned however I do think this case will mean the police will be more careful in how widely they interpret the guidelines. The police will continue to note hate incidents, gossip from neighbours, hearsay from informants and so on.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2020, 05:58 PM   #274
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,803
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
How is such a record different than the Tweet he himself made a public record of?
Because police records are relatively easy to check by people like prospective employers, compared to them searching Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Redditt, etc.
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 02:40 AM   #275
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by Mikemcc View Post
Because police records are relatively easy to check by people like prospective employers, compared to them searching Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Redditt, etc.
No they aren't.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 02:05 AM   #276
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,184
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No they aren't.
Depends on the job.
In my case, as a teacher, I am required to get a criminal record check as a condition of employment.

That said, I'm not sure any conviction for antisemitic hate speech would necessarily be a bar on employment here in the Gulf.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 02:45 AM   #277
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Depends on the job.

In my case, as a teacher, I am required to get a criminal record check as a condition of employment.



That said, I'm not sure any conviction for antisemitic hate speech would necessarily be a bar on employment here in the Gulf.
Yep, for certain jobs.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.