Race hate laws to be toughened

Quote:

---

Ministers are considering whether race hate laws should be revised after BNP leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges relating to speeches he made.

A jury decided speeches by Mr Griffin and party activist Mark Collett in 2004 had not incited racial hatred.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6137722.stm

That's all fine and good but I feel a bit uneasy about this. This seems to me to be [i] Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted [ii] Ineffectual laws passed that don't stand up in a court of law [iii] We're going to move the goal posts anytime we want to get the buggers.

I dislike the BNP and all it stands for. However these guys were tried in a court of law and found to be not guilty. This government should have realised that the law was flawed before this and set it right. Blair has already done away with double jeopardy....the question is will he seek to change the law everytime they don't get the right result?

this is stupid if we are really living in democracy surely people should be allowed to be racist?, isnt it just freedom speech? im really sick of all this PC rubbish.

I don't get it. From this side of the pond, it seems rather extreme to outlaw hate speech. Over here, some speech can be outlawed; but such speech must be threatening, not just simply hate speech. Also, not being familiar with current British law, do you guys have anything resembling our ex post facto protections? Meaning, new laws can't be applied after the fact to crimes committed prior to the law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I don't get it. From this side of the pond, it seems rather extreme to outlaw hate speech. Over here, some speech can be outlawed; but such speech must be threatening, not just simply hate speech. Also, not being familiar with current British law, do you guys have anything resembling our ex post facto protections? Meaning, new laws can't be applied after the fact to crimes committed prior to the law?

---

I may be wrong but I believe that some laws passed, such as the removal of double jeopardy were in fact retrospective. One of the problems, as I see it, is an inability to see the outcome of legislation passed or forced through parliament. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law being the most notorious.

Quote:

---

I dislike the BNP and all it stands for. However these guys were tried in a court of law and found to be not guilty. This government should have realised that the law was flawed before this and set it right. Blair has already done away with double jeopardy....the question is will he seek to change the law everytime they don't get the right result?

---

That's not it at all. The ministers know who those terrible BNP people are, and the mere thought of them makes some ministers wet their panties. They also know beyond doubt that the BNP is full of bad men, who say bad things. And in such an enlightened society as the UK, we can't allow this type of hate to continue, can we? So we have to make just a few laws that stop these terrible people from speaking. We know they're bad, we just need to write the right law to shut them up.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That's not it at all. The ministers know who those terrible BNP people are, and the mere thought of them makes some ministers wet their panties. They also know beyond doubt that the BNP is full of bad men, who say bad things. And in such an enlightened society as the UK, we can't allow this type of hate to continue, can we? So we have to make just a few laws that stop these terrible people from speaking. We know they're bad, we just need to write the right law to shut them up.

Crazed Rabbit

---

bingo...kinda snached my words there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

this is stupid if we are really living in democracy surely people should be allowed to be racist?, isnt it just freedom speech? im really sick of all this PC rubbish.

---

Theres a difference between racism and freedom of speech..... although i agree the government is ott with the PCstuff (although a bit of PCness is sensible if your a government) allowing racsim is crazy.

CR kind of sums up why the law has to be changed, although i actually have sympathy with the BNP on this one - the governments failed once, so decides to change the rules in order to win - its cheating! --> still, its necessary. :2thumbsup:

See, scurvy's got it. There's a difference between freedom of speech and plain offensiveness. We know these people have bad opinions- well, at least the majority recognizes that. So I think it's right that, since the majority recognizes the falseness and hate of these opinions, we should pass laws to stop these terrible people from speaking their mind.

CR

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

we should pass laws to stop these terrible people from speaking their mind.
CR

---

is it just me or does that sound fascist? and if i am right your completely against fascism,yes? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

is it just me or does that sound fascist? and if i am right your completely against fascism,yes? :inquisitive:

---

Actually you are required to tollerate someone's opinion, not accept it. In this case the law says you are not allowed to incite racial hatred. The BNP got around it by attacking Muslim beliefs.

The problem with banning that kind of speech is that it also makes it illegal for me to attack a Muslim who says women are pieces of meat. It prevents any kind of intellectual debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

---

I'm overwhelmed by the completeness of your conversion. Can this really be the same King Ragnar that used to call for muslims to be thrown out of the country for expressing their views?

Good to see that you have become a tolerant and understanding fellow after all.

:dizzy2:

Oh god no, i still hold those beliefs. Im still the nationalistic person i was.
Im just stating facts to counter argue for the BNP, ive realised that i cant express my true opinion on these boards without being banned, so i might as well try and do it constructively.

Ah, the "we're going to destroy democracy by using it" approach I see.

I'm suprised no-one picked up on the fact that CR wasn't being serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

---

Agreed.

I hate to hijack a perfectly good thread, but I am amazed at the general thrust of British criminal legislation these days. The United Kingdom seems to be on the road to becoming the most supervised, most controlled and most nannied nation in all of Europe. I may be wrong, I don't live there and I just read the papers. But if this in indeed the case, how come?

Can anyone give me an explanation that goes beyond the familiar partisan outcry against Blair and his party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Agreed.

I hate to hijack a perfectly good thread, but I am amazed at the general thrust of British criminal legislation these days. The United Kingdom seems to be on the road to becoming the most supervised, most controlled and most nannied nation in all of Europe. I may be wrong, I don't live there and I just read the papers. But if this in indeed the case, how come?

Can anyone give me an explanation that goes beyond the familiar partisan outcry against Blair and his party?

---

Not many people care nowadays about anti-Muslim legislation, after the reactions to the Danish cartoons - we were willing to be tolerant after the London vbombings, but they rather blotted their name by doing little to counter extremist reactions to that affair. While the far right has never had much support, and people's usual reaction to yet another crackdown is "Good riddance". Those crackdowns never last long though, as the government gets bored of the subject and the police are similarly moved onto other priorities after a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Agreed.

I hate to hijack a perfectly good thread, but I am amazed at the general thrust of British criminal legislation these days. The United Kingdom seems to be on the road to becoming the most supervised, most controlled and most nannied nation in all of Europe. I may be wrong, I don't live there and I just read the papers. But if this in indeed the case, how come?

Can anyone give me an explanation that goes beyond the familiar partisan outcry against Blair and his party?

---

Politicians the world over want to control the people as much as possible. In the UK, their problem is that they have virtually no constitutional safeguards to protect the subjects of the Crown.

The "elected dictatorship" of Parliament since 1688 has worked benignly up until now. First Lady Thatcher and now, far worse, PM Blair, has taken it to the far extremes that always lay therein by dispensing with any feeble nods towards cabinet responsibility. The "awkward squads" ie MPs with a cutting political mind and social consciences to boot have been weeded out in favour of petty journeymen.

If I may be allowed a generalisation, the British tend to be an apolitical lot, trusting that the Civil Service and general good manners will look after them. Revolution and constitutions are rather foreign, you know. Both the former have been decimated, quietly but surely.

They are sleep-walking into Orwell's world, with more of an eye on their property prices than the fate of the country.

That I understand, Pannonian, but my question was more general in nature. I mean, between the hysteria about paedophiles and the near ubiquitous use of cctv, there seems to be a tendency to control and supervise both public spaces and private behaviour in Britain.

I even believe there are now areas where you have to register and have your finger print taken taken before you can order a beer in a pub...
:help:

I know that in the past I have gained a reputation for finding Blair and his cronies abhorrent and it has much to do with the controlling aspect of his government.

The attitude of "I know best" from the politicos has always been there, as BG says Thatcher was probably amongst the worst culprits....but New Labour have taken it to the nth degree. They have introduced a raft of legislation, 2500 new Acts of Parliament (and still counting) since they hoodwinked their way into power back in '97.

They have a mania for looking busy. They think that the voters won't notice (probably rightly) that they are running fast just to stay still. Instead of upholding existing laws they make up new ones that cover the same ground. It makes them feel (and look) as though they are actually doing things.

Now the CCTV thing. This is used instead of actually providing policemen on the ground. It's cheap and once installed hundreds can be covered by a few blokes in a control room. Then again they popped up with the idea of recruiting Community Support Officers, who dress like the police but have no power of arrest....as a way of putting boots on the ground on the cheap. The same can be said of speed cameras that issue tickets automatically if one drives over the speed limit. There have been cases of drivers facing £60 fines and 4 penalty points on their licence for driving at 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Both of these types of camera generate revenue for the Exchequer....something this government is very good at.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though. In the next week or so Blair may well be hoist by his own petard. It has been reported that he will be interviewed, under caution, about flogging ermine for cash, in violation of the law he himself proposed back in 2002.

We don't do revolution in this country, it's not cricket old boy......I sometimes wish that the UK was a bit more like France in that respect. :yes:

Quote:

---

I'm suprised no-one picked up on the fact that CR wasn't being serious.

---

Personally, I'm worried.

This thread is providing an interesting discussion in how the surveillence society is coming to pass.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That I understand, Pannonian, but my question was more general in nature. I mean, between the hysteria about paedophiles and the near ubiquitous use of cctv, there seems to be a tendency to control and supervise both public spaces and private behaviour in Britain.

I even believe there are now areas where you have to register and have your finger print taken taken before you can order a beer in a pub...
:help:

---

I've never heard that before, but it wouldn't work, since people will just go to other pubs instead.

Most of the law and order proposals that this government in particular suggests are short lived, as the police aren't given the necessary resources to effect them, and they aren't too impressed by them anyway. So they flurry around when the higher ups are demanding action, and let it fade once their attention goes elsewhere. Previous governments have done this, but Blair's has perfected the art with great shrewdness and cynicism. A better way of seeing what the Home Office is really trying to do is to look at the social projects it's started, which are meant to change social tendencies as a whole. Unlike law and order, these projects actually get lasting attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I've never heard that before, but it wouldn't work, since people will just go to other pubs instead.

---

Unless they have no other pubs left to turn to...

I refer the honourable gentleman to The Register, October 20th, 2006

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The attitude of "I know best" from the politicos has always been there, as BG says Thatcher was probably amongst the worst culprits....but New Labour have taken it to the nth degree. They have introduced a raft of legislation, 2500 new Acts of Parliament (and still counting) since they hoodwinked their way into power back in '97.

---

Agreed :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

They have a mania for looking busy. They think that the voters won't notice (probably rightly) that they are running fast just to stay still. Instead of upholding existing laws they make up new ones that cover the same ground. It makes them feel (and look) as though they are actually doing things.

---

The problem is that everytime something happens (which is usually nothing to do with the government), their is great pressure on the government through the media to be seen to do something. This results in rushed policies which are counter-productive, however i don't blame the government for this, more the media and general public.

Quote:

---

Now the CCTV thing. This is used instead of actually providing policemen on the ground. It's cheap and once installed hundreds can be covered by a few blokes in a control room. Then again they popped up with the idea of recruiting Community Support Officers, who dress like the police but have no power of arrest....as a way of putting boots on the ground on the cheap.

---

CCTV is a good idea, its cheap and effective at providing evidence, but, there needs to be active police presence on the ground as a more visible detterant, i think community support officers should be given powers of arrest, it is unrealistic to expect the police to employ such huge amounts of full-time staff, so community support + more powers = hopeful problem solver.

Quote:

---

The same can be said of speed cameras that issue tickets automatically if one drives over the speed limit.
There have been cases of drivers facing £60 fines and 4 penalty points on their licence for driving at 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Both of these types of camera generate revenue for the Exchequer....something this government is very good at.

---

I like that. If the government is going to raise money i'd rather they'd raise it through speed camera's. If your driving over the speed limit (even just 1mph) then you are breaking the law, and suject to a fine, i don't see why anyone can complain. - the government wants money, why not get it while keeping road speeding down.

Quote:

---

There is light at the end of the tunnel though. In the next week or so Blair may well be hoist by his own petard. It has been reported that he will be interviewed, under caution, about flogging ermine for cash, in violation of the law he himself proposed back in 2002.

---

It won't come to anything, or if it does, it won't be him who suffer's, they'l find a nice scapegoat lower down. sadly - if he has broken the law then he should be punished, its not yet proven that he has though, so we'l see :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

We don't do revolution in this country, it's not cricket old boy......I sometimes wish that the UK was a bit more like France in that respect. :yes:

---

We don;t need revolution, just a change from bLair government (which i actually think has done okay - apart from Iraq, which it will sadly be remembered for. - its just gone on too long. Any change would be fine, whether its Brown, Cameron, or even Lib Dem.

long post - i'm trying to learn how to touch type :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Agreed :2thumbsup:

---

Thankyou. :bow:

Quote:

---

The problem is that everytime something happens (which is usually nothing to do with the government), their is great pressure on the government through the media to be seen to do something. This results in rushed policies which are counter-productive, however i don't blame the government for this, more the media and general public.

---

I don't know about you but I'd much rather not be represented by a government that reads 'The Sun Says' and acts on it.

However the rushed policies thang I totally agree with. Although they are far from the first. The pathetic Dangerous Dogs Act by that cretin Major takes some beating....although Blair has surpassed himself.

Quote:

---

CCTV is a good idea, its cheap and effective at providing evidence, but, there needs to be active police presence on the ground as a more visible detterant, i think community support officers should be given powers of arrest, it is unrealistic to expect the police to employ such huge amounts of full-time staff, so community support + more powers = hopeful problem solver.

---

I did mention that it was a cheap alternative. The simple fact is that policeman on the streets reduce crime. Now I'm just old enough to remember a copper walking past your door and nobody raised an eyebrow. If you saw a copper outside your house you'd wonder what the flippin' heck (I've had too many warnings for colourful language :clown: ) was going on!

If CSO are to be given powers of arrest, what does that say about the professionalism of our serving policemen? No, this about attempting to police Britain on the cheap.

Quote:

---

I like that. If the government is going to raise money i'd rather they'd raise it through speed camera's. If your driving over the speed limit (even just 1mph) then you are breaking the law, and suject to a fine, i don't see why anyone can complain. - the government wants money, why not get it while keeping road speeding down.

---

I'll put a tenner on it that you don't drive. :yes: Where have all the traffic cops gone who used to patrol the roads and pulled over dodgy drivers? Despite the governments propaganda speed does'n't kill....inappropriate speed does.

Quote:

---

It won't come to anything, or if it does, it won't be him who suffer's, they'l find a nice scapegoat lower down. sadly - if he has broken the law then he should be punished, its not yet proven that he has though, so we'l see

---

Nobody is above the law. Check my sig.

Quote:

---

Does `Magna Carta' mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

---

Sadly though I think you may be right. Lord Cashpoint looks like he's been lined up nicely for the scapegoat job.

Quote:

---

We don;t need revolution, just a change from bLair government (which i actually think has done okay - apart from Iraq, which it will sadly be remembered for. - its just gone on too long. Any change would be fine, whether its Brown, Cameron, or even Lib Dem.

---

The last thing we need is more of the same from 'grumpy' Brown....as for the Lib-Dems.....words fail me. :sweatdrop:

Cameron will get in at the next election. He does seem to be a little more sensible than Blair, might just be Blair being so weird though.

If it was anywhere other than Britain I'd be really rather concerned, but it's Britain. Won't go anywhere. Might take a while to undo the damage, but we won't wake up to discover our glorious leader Blair's face on every wall.

There's also some confusion I think between protecting civil liberties and embracing new technology. I'd just see CCTV as some useful new tech, whilst I'd see ID cards as some idiotic policy Blair made up just to ensure Brown never manages to win an election against the opposition promising to remove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

I like that. If the government is going to raise money i'd rather they'd raise it through speed camera's. If your driving over the speed limit (even just 1mph) then you are breaking the law, and suject to a fine, i don't see why anyone can complain. - the government wants money, why not get it while keeping road speeding down.

---

Most average speedometers are marked off in spacing of 5. So at best you would know your speed at +/_ 2.5mph iff your speedometer is accurate at all constant velocities traveled and is accurate under acceleration too.

Add to that the speed camera's have to be accurate too. Admittadely they should be able to know within metres per second accuracy. But one that has been incorrectly calibrated or setup or has been damaged or its calibaration changes with humdity and temperature can all have an effect on what it perceives the speed to be.

So no sense fining someone unless it can be in the pretty sure category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Blair has already done away with double jeopardy....the question is will he seek to change the law everytime they don't get the right result?

---

'fraid so...

You can do what you like over here, just don't think/speak publically in a non-politically correct fashion. There is boundless energy, and unlimited coffers for prosecuting the likes of the BNP (the silly party), but as to 'real crime', well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Most average speedometers are marked off in spacing of 5. So at best you would know your speed at +/_ 2.5mph iff your speedometer is accurate at all constant velocities traveled and is accurate under acceleration too.

Add to that the speed camera's have to be accurate too. Admittadely they should be able to know within metres per second accuracy. But one that has been incorrectly calibrated or setup or has been damaged or its calibaration changes with humdity and temperature can all have an effect on what it perceives the speed to be.

So no sense fining someone unless it can be in the pretty sure category.

---

When we used to have traffic cops on the streets they always, because of the disparages between the differences on the producers models, used to allow for a 10% decrease/increase for a speeding offence.

Sadly now that these guys have been superceded by the speed camera, common sense has gone out of the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

When we used to have traffic cops on the streets they always, because of the disparages between the differences on the producers models, used to allow for a 10% decrease/increase for a speeding offence.

Sadly now that these guys have been superceded by the speed camera, common sense has gone out of the window.

---

I was under the impression most police forces used the speed limit, plus 10%, plus 2mph. Although it varies depending on where you are.

Quote:

---

I was under the impression most police forces used the speed limit, plus 10%, plus 2mph.

---

This is what the South Wales police force does. So you can go 35 in a 30 zone before the cameras pick you up.

Ya democracy and freedom of leftist speech are truly great achievements :juggle2:

The truth hurts I guess.