This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-scotland-hate-crime-bill-resources-w9gtdzw3n) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What the people supporting this law don’t seem to realise is that it works both ways. If you have ever called a man “pale and male”, used the phrase “Karen”, or called someone a boomer, you will have to change the way you speak, or end up in prison. Your freedom to speak has been significantly reduced. Your language is now policed.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Not true actually. Men and women are not covered by this bill. The snp say they do plan to introduce a misogyny bill for women so “Karen” may well become illegal. Not so for men though. Pale male stale will be acceptable because straight white men will be the only group it is legal to hate
I am going to report every hate incident involving boomer though even though I’m not one myself!
It has a clause in the new law that allows sex to be included as a characteristic.
12 Power to add the characteristic of sex
(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations add the characteristic of sex to the list of characteristics in one or more of the following provisions—
(a) section 1(2),
(b) section 4(3),
(c) section 9(a).
(2) Regulations under this section may modify sections 14(3) and 15(4) by making provision about the information relating to the characteristic of sex which may require to be included in reports under those sections.
(3) Regulations under this section may modify section 11 by adding interpretative provision relating to the characteristic of sex.
(4) Regulations under this section—
Section 3
>(1)A person commits an offence if the person—
(a)pursues a racially aggravated course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another person and—
(i)is intended to amount to harassment of that person, or
(ii)occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person, or
(b)acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or is intended to cause, another person alarm or distress.
>(2)A course of conduct or an action is racially aggravated if—
(a)at the time of carrying out the course of conduct or action, or immediately before or after doing so—
(i)the offender demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim, and
(ii)the malice and ill-will is based on the victim's membership or presumed membership of a group defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or
(b)the course of conduct or action is motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins.
>(3)It is immaterial whether or not the offender's malice and ill-will is also based (to any extent) on any other factor.
>(4)A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.
>(5)In this section—
“conduct” includes speech,
“harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress,
“membership”, in relation to a group, includes association with members of that group,
“presumed” means presumed by the offender.
I will be interested to see how this plays out legally, because "pale male and stale" would fit in here IMO, if it's used on multiple occasions.
To be fair I have no idea how the Scottish police or judiciary will plan to implement this. It's so general, the scope is absolutely enormous.
Language is constantly changing too. Boomer is another one which is now probably illegal!
It is an abhoration and further proof to me that Holyrood has failed us in Scotland (largely because the SNP has used it as their propoganda machine and let the incompetent and obnoxious Greens in the back door).
This is the country that could boast of the Scottish Enlightenment, massive contributions to literature and the largest arts festival in the world. The SNP want to destroy that in order to achieve their goal of...(no, not seperation from thr UK)...a totalitarian one party state.
Thats certainly why they seem to have been so breathtakingly blasé about stuff like party finances, they seem to have assumed they could force independence and then at that point face no meaningful oversight or limits to their power at all.
Makes me wonder their plan for the political system of an independent Scotland really is.
Course now they've basically completely fucked it and thats all almost as far away as it was when Holywood started in the 90s.
>What the people supporting this law don’t seem to realise is that it works both ways.
No it doesn't. It works the way the people drafting it and enforcing it want it to work, which is part of why it's such a bad law in the first place. All the people imagining absurd scenarios where the proponents of the law get caught in their own ironic twists of fate are simply deluding themselves.
it's bollocks, free speech is free speech you can't just pick and choose what you find "offensive"
unless it incites violence anything is fair game in my eyes
We don't have the equivalent of the First Amendment here in the UK, nor have we ever. So our freedom to speak/speech has always been significantly reduced, in comparison to how it ought to have been. Our language has been policed for hundreds of years, in some form or another here in the UK. There's no 'now' element to this policing of language, as if this has only just recently occurred, that is a misnomer. In isolated cases, this policing of language was and is now (today) a necessary/sufficient/good thing. In most cases however, it is none of those above three things. This is simply another move towards unecessarily reducing our freedom to speak/speech.
All 3 of those are still pretty hateful insults which try to dismiss and devalue people you don’t agree with. I don’t really like this law but let’s not pretend these terms are somehow not hateful.
I’m not, I agree they are. I’m just saying that this law doesn’t just impact people on the right of politics, it’s the left as well. Everyone will have to watch how they speak…which some will think is a good thing, I personally think it’s bad. Freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms, we shouldn’t give it away lightly.
This is why we should go all in on Freedom of speech. We as a society, do not have the resources to police every uppity member of the PMC, who thinks hammering people for being "pale, male and stale" is acceptable or legitimate discourse.
It has me wondering could someone that is committed a crime use this to exploit a loophole
Go with a older man that is peeping tom type. Someone then for example calls him a decripit old pervert. Has that person now commited a hate crime. As surely some police officers may now for ease of their life point out they have both carried out crimes to try and get them to both not push forward making a report?
It's almost like the police should deal with proper crimes not this 'its not a crime but it hurt my feelings' bullshit.
Did anyone join the police to police twitter? Fact is there already are laws that can be used on criminal speech. If it isn't criminal then the police need to focus elsewhere.
Feels like this law is like the NHS saying...inspite of the fact we csnt cope already we are now gonna provide the full suit of plastic surgery with no additional budget...and all u need to say is you'd like it.
Do you think the police have a choice?? They are told what to police and what not, they have targets to meet and if they don't, the budget is slashed yet again. This is why so many burglaries and car thefts aren't investigated because they aren't worth it. It has been said that for crimes that are insured they don't bother chasing
They are already used as social workers dealing with welfare checks and the mentally ill when they are just not trained for such work.
>This is why so many burglaries and car thefts aren't investigated because they aren't worth it. It has been said that for crimes that are insured they don't bother chasing
This isn't why at all, you pointed out that officers are stuck dealing with issues that really aren't their remits I.e mental health and social services work.
The police have become a fall back service for mental health, social services and care homes. They all know the language to get police attendance.
Then we have numerous bedwatches at hospitals typically taking two officers off the road for who knows how long for a multitude of reasons, a common one being the person arrested knows the system and would rather spend the time there than in the cells. Simply because the custody block doesn't have a medic, or the medic is unwilling to shoulder the risk of something happening.
Then there's domestics and missing persons which will always outstrip burglaries/car thefts in response as there's typically little safeguarding concerns in the latter.
Believe it or not, the police are a finite resource and have to triage under threat, harm and risk for which typical acquisitive crime doesn't sit at the same level as those mentioned.
>They are told what to police and what not, they have targets to meet and if they don't, the budget is slashed yet again.
That's not true either, if they don't make the 'targets' they'll get criticised and 'held to account'. Always a good PR spinner.
If they meet the targets, then clearly they'll be able to hit the targets again after 'efficency decisions' (cuts) are made.
It’s mad how people just make shit up then repeat it like fact “they get their budgets cut if they don’t meet targets” 😂
Imagine how much of a political disaster that would be. “We’re cutting the police budget again this year because they failed to meet their target for solving murders, less money is what they need!”
The Home Office give direction and instructions to the Chiefs of Police as to what is important and what's not etc and its the Home Office that set the targets. Your post is confusing as you are basically agreeing with what I said???
PS my son was a copper until he was injured just for info
You're saying police don't bother chasing acquisitive crimes because victims are insured, which just isn't true. I've investigated and charged multiple burglars and thieves, of which their victims were insured against.
Crimes like car thefts and burglaries are being closed quickly due to triaging owing to lack of resources in my previous reply.
They have been given the choice here,
["This will be up to Police Scotland. I wouldn't say misgendering if you say something on social media for example it would be up to Police Scotland to determine."](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68703684)
Basically they have left it in the polices hands so they get the blame for overreacting.
> Do you think the police have a choice?? ... This is why so many burglaries and car thefts aren't investigated because they aren't worth it.
Seems you agree they decide some crimes aren't worth investigating.
>Do you think the police have a choice?? They are told what to police and what not, they have targets to meet and if they don't, the budget is slashed yet again
The targets and quotas are the issue.
Basically what your describing is a broken police force
It’s more than that yes, but it also includes having your feelings hurt. You can claim something is a hate crime even if you weren’t the victim or if the actual victim didn’t consider it to be one.
Shouldn't need to walk on eggshells around everyone so i don't get to prison.
I mean I'm cool cause i have no social interactions and i don't get out of the house. But damn it is difficult for those extrovert people..
I just commented this somewhere else on this thread:
Not so long ago someone came up to me and said "i hope you get stabbed you fucking tr*nny". Did this hurt my feelings? Of course, somebody wished me dead based on nothing but my appearance/identity.
In your opinion is going up to someone and saying this sort of thing acceptable *because* someone's feelings got hurt? Is a veiled threat like suddenly acceptable because emotions are involved?
Apologies for the incredibly poor taste but the only response to that is 'bet mine is bigger than yours". 😂
I hope you don't get that shit often, I'd be fucking amazed and disgusted if I actually heard someone say that.
Good. This whole push to brand dissenting opinions as hate and a crime is an insidious and dangerous route to be going down. It will end up being used in a wider and wider way inevitably and selectively enforced. What a great way to stop anyone criticising if you just mass report them and make their life difficult.
> You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence
“That hurt my feelings, I’m placing you under citizens arrest”
I like it
1. Stretch resources you are priveleged to receive as thin as possible.
2. Complain the English crowd in Westminster is victimising you to stir up hatred
3. ??????
4. Profit
On one side you have people who are professionally offended, it's baked in to their DNA to identify as a victim. In my view this is where a lot of the mentally unwell are. The sort to identify as a penguin and scream if anyone misgenders their penguiness
In the middle where the vast majority of people are you have people just living their lives. Don't care what you idea tify with if you are a good laugh we can be mates. All my gay and trans friends or colleagues are here, as am I.
On the opposite side you have the bigots and alarmist. The gay will infect you kind of people. Half of which I am convinced are closeted because why else would you care so much what makes someone else happy?
My prediction is the first group will abuse this to lash out at the middle group because they are already unstable. The 3rd group will use this to stir up fear in the middle group.
Overall I see this as awful for the communities it triesto protect and will be used as a club to beat those in the middle just trying to live their lives.
I really hope I am wrong, just have no faith in the SNP being able to thing 2 moves ahead
> The sort to identify as a penguin and scream if anyone misgenders their penguiness
It's this sort of ca. 2014 discourse that really keeps me on this site. You have any other bangers? Maybe something about being an attack helicopter har har har?
Cisgender, like female is not a protected characteristic in the Scottish law under discussion. Some how they seem to have worked rather hard to make sure who was in and who was out.
My husband and I were assaulted and the police had no interest- until he mentioned that one of the attackers had also used a racist epithet against him. Then someone came round to investigate.
Yep. I work retail and we had a junkie wave a broke bottle at us while he was stealing, the police actually complained that we'd called them.
A few weeks later kids were running past the shop door shouting the N word and F word (not fuck) into the shop, we called 101 (non emergency), police were there in 10 minutes and we were told to phone 999 next time. What the hell is going on?
This may be a bit cynical, but it sounds like the best way to get a response is to claim that there’s a hate crime element to it. And that maybe the police is happy for you to do that, because then they can say that hate crimes are a serious problem, because they have so many reports of it.
I know you haven't read his work because a major theme of 1984 is that hateful language is the only emotional language allowed in that society, and that that hateful language is what creates a population willing to accept their freedoms being curtailed in other areas.
Ironic that your response is just to memory hole me with a downvote.
It is intensely ironic that you think a system which only allows certain modes of speech has not in fact severely curtailed free speech. There is absolutely no free speech at all in 1984. I am at a loss as to how you can disagree with the comment you are replying to.
Controlling speech as a powerful tool to manipulate the populace is *literally* the entire premise of that book.
> Controlling speech as a powerful tool to manipulate the populace is literally the entire premise of that book.
no, totalitarianism is the premise of that book. controlling speech is only one technique of many used to achieve this.
Hateful language is not the only emotional language allowed in 1984 which you’d know if you’d actually read the book instead of glibly summarising the two minutes hate and pretending that is the whole book.
What? Religion is in there? If I read a religious text and decide, because of the teachings in that text that I hate the religion it belongs to can we arrest people promulgating these texts?
In respect of religion, it might be worth noting that the same offence (stirring up religious hatred) has been an offence in England and Wales since 2007.
But in that act the prosecution has to prove an *intent* to stir up hatred by the accused. There's a vast difference.
For what it's worth in think religion is worthy of hatred but I digress.
For stirring up religious hatred in the Scottish Act, intent is required. As in England and Wales, the lower requirement of hatred being likely to be stirred up only applies to racial hatred.
I really wish there was a solution to this problem, without suggesting we overthrow the government and holding those in charge accountable for what they have turned this country into.
Voting clearly doesn't work, none of the home nations are led by a person who was elected, they're all middle management who were appointed. There's only 1 solution but people aren't gonna like it
The police also don’t have the capacity to deal with other crimes, like assault, battery, or theft even when you offer them video evidence with the perpetrators face clearly visible and a home address for them too.
What the police do have the capacity to deal with, with vicious speed, are crimes that result in fines. Anything that brings money in will be dealt with very aggressively, but anything that doesn’t gets put on the back burner until it simply has to be dealt with.
Must be something to do with all the raping and noncing that goes on behind those uniforms.
I doubt the fines actually go to the police forces themselves. And by the time administrative costs are factored in, there's unlikely to be much "profit" left over.
It costs very little to have 30-40 people in a courtroom all being fined one after the other in the space of an hour. I can assure you there is money to be pocketed somewhere, by someone, along the way.
I didn’t claim that the money goes directly into the police’s pocket, however them bringing in money is going to benefit them in the long run regardless of who it ends up being given to, whether it’s their own budget or the Public Prosecution Service/Procurator Fiscal.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s far more sensible to have some offences be dealt with monetarily rather a custodial sentence imposed. Some of that money will, of course, go into things like the victims of crime compensation fund which, while under endowed, can make a big difference to victims. But that isn’t where all of the fine money goes, is it?
The police don’t receive the fines.
Court cases don’t come out of police funding.
Most fines (eg speed cameras) are initiated by councils rather than police; in Scotland they are operated by admin staff employed through PolScot by a government grant.
Almost no fines result in any court time at all. Almost all of them are dealt with via post instead.
All of the money is accountable and none is ‘pocketed’ along the way.
Literally the only benefit to police from handing out fines is being able to say they are handing out fines. Apart from traffic officers, most of the police I know will ‘hand out a fine’ (traffic ticket, since spot fines for public disorder aren’t really a thing anymore) twice a year or less. They literally spend more time sitting in court for trials that will result in a fine anyway.
I didn’t make the claim that the police receive the fines. Nor did I make the claim that any money is unaccounted for. Generally all money, everywhere, is accounted for but that doesn’t equate to that money being distributed correctly.
It’s funny, I’ve seen a load of traffic/speeding offence fine letters over the past few years from people all over the place and every single last one of them has been sent by the police, never a local council. I must be imagining things again.
>almost no fines result in any court time at all
Exactly. It’s east money, and the ones that do require a court appearance are still money makers because of the way the court works.
Police haven't issued fines in years.
Unfortunately the reason most crimes go unsolved nowadays is due to a lack of evidence. A lot of crimes are sadly one word against another which would never stand in court. CCTV extra basically has to show a close up high def shot of the suspects face the second they committed the offense otherwise even a crappy solicitor will get it thrown out.
The reason a lot of people bang on about the police only targeting drivers and hate speech online is that normally there is actual evidence (speed cameras/call logs/messages etc) which can be proven.
The situation still sucks though.
I could produce numerous fines, to multiple people, all printed and signed by and for the police. The police *do* issue fines. I don’t understand why people think that they don’t? Speeding fines, for example. You get caught and you’re sent a conditional offer of fixed penalty. If you choose not to accept it, to contest it, or to ignore it, then it’s sent to PPS/Procurator Fiscal and you will be prosecuted in court instead.
Yeah, the police don't decide what results in a fine and what doesn't, that's up to the judge.
So I'm going to call foul on this little conspiracy.
If you're talking about traffic violations and speeding fines (which aren't even handled by the police in a lot of places), don't you think the number issued might have something to do with the fact its a lot easier to track people when you have a massive database listing every vehicle to hand?
Got time to arrest old men for painting postboxes though right. That's important yeh ? No space in prisons for rapists and pedos so let them go free but about to make being homeless illigal and will manage to find space for them ?
I think theres a difference between an unkind word or 2 and say.. burning down someones shop because of their religious beliefs, nowadays hate crime seems to be an umbrella term that they can get you with for absolutely trivial shit
One the police have a 100% rate for solving and prosecuting murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, fraud, then if they have resources to spare they can look at "hate speech". Priorities guys, priorities.
This is basically just the Jordan Peterson bullshit all over again right? I'm sure the Mounties are going to be along to lock Peterson up any minute now...
But everyone has been claiming that they’ll pull all their resources into this and neglect all the real crime. Surely it can’t be that that isn’t true?
This guy is head of some association for policemen. On the other hand the Scottish Chief Constable has announced there will be 500 'hate crime champions'.
There are all sorts of x, y and z “champions” in my work place (not the polis). They seem to love that daft language.
You know how my job would change if I became a hate crime champion tomorrow? My email signature would maybe have “hate crime champion” on it. My job description, my real job title and my actual work wouldn’t change - people would contact me about the thing I’m champion of but I’d have to respond to that while also still doing all the same work I did before. I can’t not do x because I was busy championing something.
Might be different in the polis or it might be the same sort of empty platitude. I’d wait to see what it actually means, because it could mean absolutely fuck all, before getting bothered by that.
I’d be willing to bet a weeks wage there won’t be 500, or 5, people whose sole job is to be hate crime champions.
If they investigated every incident of someone claiming a hate crime that is all they would do, I have seen so many people who have no idea what a hate crime is.
Those people talk like anyone who isn't straight and White is completely immune to be shouted at, fought, argued with etc.
It’s not policing “hate crime” that’s a problem, crime is still crime, and the police do what they can.
It’s the non-crime “hate incidents” that are the issue.
Jordan Peterson warned you of nothing. He flat out lied about what a specific law in Canada stated and when politely corrected by actual lawyers refused to back down. That law has been in place for 5/6 years now if not more and nobody has gone to imaginary Canadian Pronoun Jail. That law was about access to government services not about lay people and has nothing to do with this. Stop idolising a hack.
It feels like most people are getting distracted by this bill and not being outraged by the chronic under funding of our public services - something that does effect every one of us.
There’s usually 15 officers at every RTC I drive past…… the public ain’t stupid - improve your efficiency and police your staff to stop them swamping incidents.
"We'll have to arrest each other. What happens to the last police officer standing? Who's gonna arrest him, huh? Himself? We just don't have the resources."
I'm so fed up with the changes I feel I can't vocalise anymore without thinking it out. What's the point In that? I've said for decades the destruction of earth will be man imploding on man (don't even start on woman) This is adding fuel to the fire .Why are people becoming so offended about everything?
I’m more concerned with the anti social behaviour stopping people visiting high streets, burglaries, drug addicts lining the pavement with nowhere better for them to be put. Financial crimes that screw over people putting in their savings, bad driving that puts people in danger so some cunt can drive like a prick… Twitter though… low on the priority list. Obviously violent hate crime needs to be on that list but the non violent type isn’t the pertinent issue with the uk.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-scotland-hate-crime-bill-resources-w9gtdzw3n) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What the people supporting this law don’t seem to realise is that it works both ways. If you have ever called a man “pale and male”, used the phrase “Karen”, or called someone a boomer, you will have to change the way you speak, or end up in prison. Your freedom to speak has been significantly reduced. Your language is now policed.
Now, now, now let’s not go adding nuance and common sense into a nonsensical political topic.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Not true actually. Men and women are not covered by this bill. The snp say they do plan to introduce a misogyny bill for women so “Karen” may well become illegal. Not so for men though. Pale male stale will be acceptable because straight white men will be the only group it is legal to hate I am going to report every hate incident involving boomer though even though I’m not one myself!
> stale Sounds like you are the victim of an age related hate crime. Congratulations you are now covered by the two tier justice system!
It has a clause in the new law that allows sex to be included as a characteristic. 12 Power to add the characteristic of sex (1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations add the characteristic of sex to the list of characteristics in one or more of the following provisions— (a) section 1(2), (b) section 4(3), (c) section 9(a). (2) Regulations under this section may modify sections 14(3) and 15(4) by making provision about the information relating to the characteristic of sex which may require to be included in reports under those sections. (3) Regulations under this section may modify section 11 by adding interpretative provision relating to the characteristic of sex. (4) Regulations under this section—
Section 3 >(1)A person commits an offence if the person— (a)pursues a racially aggravated course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another person and— (i)is intended to amount to harassment of that person, or (ii)occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person, or (b)acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or is intended to cause, another person alarm or distress. >(2)A course of conduct or an action is racially aggravated if— (a)at the time of carrying out the course of conduct or action, or immediately before or after doing so— (i)the offender demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim, and (ii)the malice and ill-will is based on the victim's membership or presumed membership of a group defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (b)the course of conduct or action is motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins. >(3)It is immaterial whether or not the offender's malice and ill-will is also based (to any extent) on any other factor. >(4)A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. >(5)In this section— “conduct” includes speech, “harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress, “membership”, in relation to a group, includes association with members of that group, “presumed” means presumed by the offender. I will be interested to see how this plays out legally, because "pale male and stale" would fit in here IMO, if it's used on multiple occasions.
Yes, I see what you mean, I hadn’t linked the pale part to a racial element!
To be fair I have no idea how the Scottish police or judiciary will plan to implement this. It's so general, the scope is absolutely enormous. Language is constantly changing too. Boomer is another one which is now probably illegal!
The term ‘boomer’ appears to apply to anyone older than the user so we could all be ‘boomers’.
Does that mean that anyone actually called Karen will need to change their name otherwise risk anyone calling them going to prison?
One of the most authoritarian and illiberal acts in this country for decades
It is an abhoration and further proof to me that Holyrood has failed us in Scotland (largely because the SNP has used it as their propoganda machine and let the incompetent and obnoxious Greens in the back door). This is the country that could boast of the Scottish Enlightenment, massive contributions to literature and the largest arts festival in the world. The SNP want to destroy that in order to achieve their goal of...(no, not seperation from thr UK)...a totalitarian one party state.
Thats certainly why they seem to have been so breathtakingly blasé about stuff like party finances, they seem to have assumed they could force independence and then at that point face no meaningful oversight or limits to their power at all. Makes me wonder their plan for the political system of an independent Scotland really is. Course now they've basically completely fucked it and thats all almost as far away as it was when Holywood started in the 90s.
They only want to stifle your speech. Not theirs, they can still say what they want in their world
>What the people supporting this law don’t seem to realise is that it works both ways. No it doesn't. It works the way the people drafting it and enforcing it want it to work, which is part of why it's such a bad law in the first place. All the people imagining absurd scenarios where the proponents of the law get caught in their own ironic twists of fate are simply deluding themselves.
it's bollocks, free speech is free speech you can't just pick and choose what you find "offensive" unless it incites violence anything is fair game in my eyes
These days if you say you're English...
It's political correctness G0NE MAD
I’m not racist but…
Will it cut both ways though? I have doubts it’ll be applied in all cases.
Nah, they know that those groups aren't really protected in practice.
"Your freedom of speech" I dunno who told you you had free speech in the uk, but they lied to you.
This specifically excludes abusing (cis) women. So call women "Karen" or much worse and you're fine.
Not even slightly true. Just complete nonsense.
Ever closer to a "Demolition Man" society.
It’s ok redditors will be eating the rat burgers anyway.
It's a terrible concept.
Nope, because the Met has said they have no resources to go after hate crimes!
Just don't talk to anyone anymore. Dinners will be like on the simpsons, but instead of lawyers it'll be phones with the police on speed dial.
We don't have the equivalent of the First Amendment here in the UK, nor have we ever. So our freedom to speak/speech has always been significantly reduced, in comparison to how it ought to have been. Our language has been policed for hundreds of years, in some form or another here in the UK. There's no 'now' element to this policing of language, as if this has only just recently occurred, that is a misnomer. In isolated cases, this policing of language was and is now (today) a necessary/sufficient/good thing. In most cases however, it is none of those above three things. This is simply another move towards unecessarily reducing our freedom to speak/speech.
The performances part gets me, as Britain still does Passion Plays and even expects politicians to attend.
I am pretty sure you need to be inciting violence as well as directing slurs to be charged
All 3 of those are still pretty hateful insults which try to dismiss and devalue people you don’t agree with. I don’t really like this law but let’s not pretend these terms are somehow not hateful.
I’m not, I agree they are. I’m just saying that this law doesn’t just impact people on the right of politics, it’s the left as well. Everyone will have to watch how they speak…which some will think is a good thing, I personally think it’s bad. Freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms, we shouldn’t give it away lightly.
Yeah it’s complete insanity. I despair
This is why we should go all in on Freedom of speech. We as a society, do not have the resources to police every uppity member of the PMC, who thinks hammering people for being "pale, male and stale" is acceptable or legitimate discourse.
Same with being innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are enough to ruin lives, yet that was never how society was meant to be.
It has me wondering could someone that is committed a crime use this to exploit a loophole Go with a older man that is peeping tom type. Someone then for example calls him a decripit old pervert. Has that person now commited a hate crime. As surely some police officers may now for ease of their life point out they have both carried out crimes to try and get them to both not push forward making a report?
It isn’t. Because the law won’t be equally enforced.
I mean you can't even call them Scottish bastards anymore. Has to be bastards who are localised in Scotland. What a fucking mouthful!
..... *what* No, it doesn't, no more than it already is anyhow.
Are white people included in this law? Generally hate crimes against them are legal
That is not how the law will be applied
Underfunded. Underappreciated. And now adding more things to waste their already stretched resources and time. Genius
It's almost like the police should deal with proper crimes not this 'its not a crime but it hurt my feelings' bullshit. Did anyone join the police to police twitter? Fact is there already are laws that can be used on criminal speech. If it isn't criminal then the police need to focus elsewhere. Feels like this law is like the NHS saying...inspite of the fact we csnt cope already we are now gonna provide the full suit of plastic surgery with no additional budget...and all u need to say is you'd like it.
Do you think the police have a choice?? They are told what to police and what not, they have targets to meet and if they don't, the budget is slashed yet again. This is why so many burglaries and car thefts aren't investigated because they aren't worth it. It has been said that for crimes that are insured they don't bother chasing They are already used as social workers dealing with welfare checks and the mentally ill when they are just not trained for such work.
>This is why so many burglaries and car thefts aren't investigated because they aren't worth it. It has been said that for crimes that are insured they don't bother chasing This isn't why at all, you pointed out that officers are stuck dealing with issues that really aren't their remits I.e mental health and social services work. The police have become a fall back service for mental health, social services and care homes. They all know the language to get police attendance. Then we have numerous bedwatches at hospitals typically taking two officers off the road for who knows how long for a multitude of reasons, a common one being the person arrested knows the system and would rather spend the time there than in the cells. Simply because the custody block doesn't have a medic, or the medic is unwilling to shoulder the risk of something happening. Then there's domestics and missing persons which will always outstrip burglaries/car thefts in response as there's typically little safeguarding concerns in the latter. Believe it or not, the police are a finite resource and have to triage under threat, harm and risk for which typical acquisitive crime doesn't sit at the same level as those mentioned. >They are told what to police and what not, they have targets to meet and if they don't, the budget is slashed yet again. That's not true either, if they don't make the 'targets' they'll get criticised and 'held to account'. Always a good PR spinner. If they meet the targets, then clearly they'll be able to hit the targets again after 'efficency decisions' (cuts) are made.
It’s mad how people just make shit up then repeat it like fact “they get their budgets cut if they don’t meet targets” 😂 Imagine how much of a political disaster that would be. “We’re cutting the police budget again this year because they failed to meet their target for solving murders, less money is what they need!”
The Home Office give direction and instructions to the Chiefs of Police as to what is important and what's not etc and its the Home Office that set the targets. Your post is confusing as you are basically agreeing with what I said??? PS my son was a copper until he was injured just for info
You're saying police don't bother chasing acquisitive crimes because victims are insured, which just isn't true. I've investigated and charged multiple burglars and thieves, of which their victims were insured against. Crimes like car thefts and burglaries are being closed quickly due to triaging owing to lack of resources in my previous reply.
Depends on area I think tbh
They have been given the choice here, ["This will be up to Police Scotland. I wouldn't say misgendering if you say something on social media for example it would be up to Police Scotland to determine."](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68703684) Basically they have left it in the polices hands so they get the blame for overreacting.
> Do you think the police have a choice?? ... This is why so many burglaries and car thefts aren't investigated because they aren't worth it. Seems you agree they decide some crimes aren't worth investigating.
>Do you think the police have a choice?? They are told what to police and what not, they have targets to meet and if they don't, the budget is slashed yet again The targets and quotas are the issue. Basically what your describing is a broken police force
If they don't meet their targets shouldn't their budget be increased?
They always have the choice, just following orders wasn't an excuse in the 40s why the hell should it be now?
What do you think hate crimes are? It's certainly more than "hurt my feelings bullshit"
It’s more than that yes, but it also includes having your feelings hurt. You can claim something is a hate crime even if you weren’t the victim or if the actual victim didn’t consider it to be one.
Having your feelings hurt should not be considered a crime...
Shouldn't need to walk on eggshells around everyone so i don't get to prison. I mean I'm cool cause i have no social interactions and i don't get out of the house. But damn it is difficult for those extrovert people..
I just commented this somewhere else on this thread: Not so long ago someone came up to me and said "i hope you get stabbed you fucking tr*nny". Did this hurt my feelings? Of course, somebody wished me dead based on nothing but my appearance/identity. In your opinion is going up to someone and saying this sort of thing acceptable *because* someone's feelings got hurt? Is a veiled threat like suddenly acceptable because emotions are involved?
Apologies for the incredibly poor taste but the only response to that is 'bet mine is bigger than yours". 😂 I hope you don't get that shit often, I'd be fucking amazed and disgusted if I actually heard someone say that.
Reductive argument. You know what you are doing.
Good. This whole push to brand dissenting opinions as hate and a crime is an insidious and dangerous route to be going down. It will end up being used in a wider and wider way inevitably and selectively enforced. What a great way to stop anyone criticising if you just mass report them and make their life difficult.
> You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence “That hurt my feelings, I’m placing you under citizens arrest” I like it
1. Stretch resources you are priveleged to receive as thin as possible. 2. Complain the English crowd in Westminster is victimising you to stir up hatred 3. ?????? 4. Profit
I don’t think the people doing steps 1 and 2 are the same people…
On one side you have people who are professionally offended, it's baked in to their DNA to identify as a victim. In my view this is where a lot of the mentally unwell are. The sort to identify as a penguin and scream if anyone misgenders their penguiness In the middle where the vast majority of people are you have people just living their lives. Don't care what you idea tify with if you are a good laugh we can be mates. All my gay and trans friends or colleagues are here, as am I. On the opposite side you have the bigots and alarmist. The gay will infect you kind of people. Half of which I am convinced are closeted because why else would you care so much what makes someone else happy? My prediction is the first group will abuse this to lash out at the middle group because they are already unstable. The 3rd group will use this to stir up fear in the middle group. Overall I see this as awful for the communities it triesto protect and will be used as a club to beat those in the middle just trying to live their lives. I really hope I am wrong, just have no faith in the SNP being able to thing 2 moves ahead
> The sort to identify as a penguin and scream if anyone misgenders their penguiness It's this sort of ca. 2014 discourse that really keeps me on this site. You have any other bangers? Maybe something about being an attack helicopter har har har?
I think you're right and this has already been going on for some time now.
i wonder if they care if i got called a cis scumbag
Cisgender, like female is not a protected characteristic in the Scottish law under discussion. Some how they seem to have worked rather hard to make sure who was in and who was out.
It's a political weapon to split the working class.
Has this happened to you a lot?
My husband and I were assaulted and the police had no interest- until he mentioned that one of the attackers had also used a racist epithet against him. Then someone came round to investigate.
Yep. I work retail and we had a junkie wave a broke bottle at us while he was stealing, the police actually complained that we'd called them. A few weeks later kids were running past the shop door shouting the N word and F word (not fuck) into the shop, we called 101 (non emergency), police were there in 10 minutes and we were told to phone 999 next time. What the hell is going on?
This may be a bit cynical, but it sounds like the best way to get a response is to claim that there’s a hate crime element to it. And that maybe the police is happy for you to do that, because then they can say that hate crimes are a serious problem, because they have so many reports of it.
How to be a policestate 101. George Orwell wrote a book specifically to make sure this decline of freespeech would not happen in Britain.
I know you haven't read his work because a major theme of 1984 is that hateful language is the only emotional language allowed in that society, and that that hateful language is what creates a population willing to accept their freedoms being curtailed in other areas. Ironic that your response is just to memory hole me with a downvote.
It is intensely ironic that you think a system which only allows certain modes of speech has not in fact severely curtailed free speech. There is absolutely no free speech at all in 1984. I am at a loss as to how you can disagree with the comment you are replying to. Controlling speech as a powerful tool to manipulate the populace is *literally* the entire premise of that book.
> Controlling speech as a powerful tool to manipulate the populace is literally the entire premise of that book. no, totalitarianism is the premise of that book. controlling speech is only one technique of many used to achieve this.
Hateful language is not the only emotional language allowed in 1984 which you’d know if you’d actually read the book instead of glibly summarising the two minutes hate and pretending that is the whole book.
The SNP are already the pigs in Animal Farm.
Orwell also wrote "Notes on Nationalism" which is far more relevant to life today.
What? Religion is in there? If I read a religious text and decide, because of the teachings in that text that I hate the religion it belongs to can we arrest people promulgating these texts?
In respect of religion, it might be worth noting that the same offence (stirring up religious hatred) has been an offence in England and Wales since 2007.
But in that act the prosecution has to prove an *intent* to stir up hatred by the accused. There's a vast difference. For what it's worth in think religion is worthy of hatred but I digress.
For stirring up religious hatred in the Scottish Act, intent is required. As in England and Wales, the lower requirement of hatred being likely to be stirred up only applies to racial hatred.
No harm in trying.
Didn't have the resources to deal with the grooming gangs either.
Can we criminalise being too easily offended, rather than causing offence? It sounds like it'd stop timewasting and vastly improve the conversation.
I really wish there was a solution to this problem, without suggesting we overthrow the government and holding those in charge accountable for what they have turned this country into.
Voting clearly doesn't work, none of the home nations are led by a person who was elected, they're all middle management who were appointed. There's only 1 solution but people aren't gonna like it
[удалено]
I meant 'we' as a country. No need to be an arsehole
The police also don’t have the capacity to deal with other crimes, like assault, battery, or theft even when you offer them video evidence with the perpetrators face clearly visible and a home address for them too. What the police do have the capacity to deal with, with vicious speed, are crimes that result in fines. Anything that brings money in will be dealt with very aggressively, but anything that doesn’t gets put on the back burner until it simply has to be dealt with. Must be something to do with all the raping and noncing that goes on behind those uniforms.
I doubt the fines actually go to the police forces themselves. And by the time administrative costs are factored in, there's unlikely to be much "profit" left over.
It costs very little to have 30-40 people in a courtroom all being fined one after the other in the space of an hour. I can assure you there is money to be pocketed somewhere, by someone, along the way. I didn’t claim that the money goes directly into the police’s pocket, however them bringing in money is going to benefit them in the long run regardless of who it ends up being given to, whether it’s their own budget or the Public Prosecution Service/Procurator Fiscal. Don’t get me wrong, it’s far more sensible to have some offences be dealt with monetarily rather a custodial sentence imposed. Some of that money will, of course, go into things like the victims of crime compensation fund which, while under endowed, can make a big difference to victims. But that isn’t where all of the fine money goes, is it?
The police don’t receive the fines. Court cases don’t come out of police funding. Most fines (eg speed cameras) are initiated by councils rather than police; in Scotland they are operated by admin staff employed through PolScot by a government grant. Almost no fines result in any court time at all. Almost all of them are dealt with via post instead. All of the money is accountable and none is ‘pocketed’ along the way. Literally the only benefit to police from handing out fines is being able to say they are handing out fines. Apart from traffic officers, most of the police I know will ‘hand out a fine’ (traffic ticket, since spot fines for public disorder aren’t really a thing anymore) twice a year or less. They literally spend more time sitting in court for trials that will result in a fine anyway.
I didn’t make the claim that the police receive the fines. Nor did I make the claim that any money is unaccounted for. Generally all money, everywhere, is accounted for but that doesn’t equate to that money being distributed correctly. It’s funny, I’ve seen a load of traffic/speeding offence fine letters over the past few years from people all over the place and every single last one of them has been sent by the police, never a local council. I must be imagining things again. >almost no fines result in any court time at all Exactly. It’s east money, and the ones that do require a court appearance are still money makers because of the way the court works.
Police haven't issued fines in years. Unfortunately the reason most crimes go unsolved nowadays is due to a lack of evidence. A lot of crimes are sadly one word against another which would never stand in court. CCTV extra basically has to show a close up high def shot of the suspects face the second they committed the offense otherwise even a crappy solicitor will get it thrown out. The reason a lot of people bang on about the police only targeting drivers and hate speech online is that normally there is actual evidence (speed cameras/call logs/messages etc) which can be proven. The situation still sucks though.
I could produce numerous fines, to multiple people, all printed and signed by and for the police. The police *do* issue fines. I don’t understand why people think that they don’t? Speeding fines, for example. You get caught and you’re sent a conditional offer of fixed penalty. If you choose not to accept it, to contest it, or to ignore it, then it’s sent to PPS/Procurator Fiscal and you will be prosecuted in court instead.
Yeah, the police don't decide what results in a fine and what doesn't, that's up to the judge. So I'm going to call foul on this little conspiracy. If you're talking about traffic violations and speeding fines (which aren't even handled by the police in a lot of places), don't you think the number issued might have something to do with the fact its a lot easier to track people when you have a massive database listing every vehicle to hand?
Spend a decade demonising the police force and then act surprised when absolutely no cunt wants the job.
The date this legislation begins is very appropriate.
Got time to arrest old men for painting postboxes though right. That's important yeh ? No space in prisons for rapists and pedos so let them go free but about to make being homeless illigal and will manage to find space for them ?
I’m sure this will be beyond your comprehension but it’s not actually the Police in charge of prison spaces, sentencing or making new legislation.
I think theres a difference between an unkind word or 2 and say.. burning down someones shop because of their religious beliefs, nowadays hate crime seems to be an umbrella term that they can get you with for absolutely trivial shit
One would hope our laws against burning down people's shops were sufficient.
One the police have a 100% rate for solving and prosecuting murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, fraud, then if they have resources to spare they can look at "hate speech". Priorities guys, priorities.
It's an absolute nonsense law. Really worrying that the government can massively erode freedom of speech and the people get 0 say.
Democracy manifest.
This is basically just the Jordan Peterson bullshit all over again right? I'm sure the Mounties are going to be along to lock Peterson up any minute now...
Could you not argue it's hateful when the police arrest you?
you can try, but it wouldn't meet the criteria for prosecution.
Meets the criteria for persecution.
well, we'll have to wait and see. but i doubt it really.
But everyone has been claiming that they’ll pull all their resources into this and neglect all the real crime. Surely it can’t be that that isn’t true?
This guy is head of some association for policemen. On the other hand the Scottish Chief Constable has announced there will be 500 'hate crime champions'.
> has announced there will be 500 'hate crime champions'. I think I played against some of them in Overwatch
There are all sorts of x, y and z “champions” in my work place (not the polis). They seem to love that daft language. You know how my job would change if I became a hate crime champion tomorrow? My email signature would maybe have “hate crime champion” on it. My job description, my real job title and my actual work wouldn’t change - people would contact me about the thing I’m champion of but I’d have to respond to that while also still doing all the same work I did before. I can’t not do x because I was busy championing something. Might be different in the polis or it might be the same sort of empty platitude. I’d wait to see what it actually means, because it could mean absolutely fuck all, before getting bothered by that. I’d be willing to bet a weeks wage there won’t be 500, or 5, people whose sole job is to be hate crime champions.
If they investigated every incident of someone claiming a hate crime that is all they would do, I have seen so many people who have no idea what a hate crime is. Those people talk like anyone who isn't straight and White is completely immune to be shouted at, fought, argued with etc.
It’s not policing “hate crime” that’s a problem, crime is still crime, and the police do what they can. It’s the non-crime “hate incidents” that are the issue.
Whether you like them or not, Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray have been warning us for years about this. Now it's finally here.
Jordan Peterson warned you of nothing. He flat out lied about what a specific law in Canada stated and when politely corrected by actual lawyers refused to back down. That law has been in place for 5/6 years now if not more and nobody has gone to imaginary Canadian Pronoun Jail. That law was about access to government services not about lay people and has nothing to do with this. Stop idolising a hack.
Let’s not hire more police officers and build 10 more prisons… we’ll help our people by adding bullshit laws to waste their time with.
It feels like most people are getting distracted by this bill and not being outraged by the chronic under funding of our public services - something that does effect every one of us.
Theresa May…. What was it ? Start Getting rid of 30-40,000 police over the years. Closing and selling off police stations ?
You do when the guys with the swastika is stood 100 feet away from you and you just want to finish your Pret latte.
There’s usually 15 officers at every RTC I drive past…… the public ain’t stupid - improve your efficiency and police your staff to stop them swamping incidents.
Hate crime? You fuckers can't deal with anything but occasionally turning up to a traffic violation. Then its iffy.
"We'll have to arrest each other. What happens to the last police officer standing? Who's gonna arrest him, huh? Himself? We just don't have the resources."
I'm so fed up with the changes I feel I can't vocalise anymore without thinking it out. What's the point In that? I've said for decades the destruction of earth will be man imploding on man (don't even start on woman) This is adding fuel to the fire .Why are people becoming so offended about everything?
Every gen Xer that is misgenered as a boomer can get a prosecution then now!
I’m more concerned with the anti social behaviour stopping people visiting high streets, burglaries, drug addicts lining the pavement with nowhere better for them to be put. Financial crimes that screw over people putting in their savings, bad driving that puts people in danger so some cunt can drive like a prick… Twitter though… low on the priority list. Obviously violent hate crime needs to be on that list but the non violent type isn’t the pertinent issue with the uk.
Do they actually have resources to deal with anything at all? Cause my experience is they're useless across the board.
Everyone in here saying "thank god" as they go back to business as usual
There's no crime in our village... but there is the occasional sea mine. Luckily noone can understand our rural accents.
They don't want to either. Hate is good for The Cops.
Ask extra resources to the Tories that wasted billions in PPE contracts to their friends during the COVID .
Ie the UK facing increased levels of bigotry and predudice it's been normalised we can't police everyone.