Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thoughtcrime UK


RoofGardener

Recommended Posts

Words. meh! Words hurt nobody. The PC crowd is going criminally insane....

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Piney said:

Words. meh! Words hurt nobody. The PC crowd is going criminally insane....

Words only hurt if the individual allows them. So anyone getting offended or upset from words is doing so by choice. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

George Orwel wrote a famous book called "1984", about a dystopian, totalitarian police-state in the UK. A key tenet of the book was "thoughtcrime"; the idea that your thoughts alone could be deemed criminal. (if they where critical of The State).

Fast forwards to Britain today ! The Metropolitan Police  issued an advisory notice to the public on their website, explaining what a hate crime is. This was dated 18th March 2018. In it, they make a truly chilling comment. 

".. though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence". 

Met-Hate-Crime.jpg

Now, this is not entirely new; motivation has often been considered a factor in jurisprudence. Hence the difference between murder and manslaughter. However, the law has ALWAYS been based on a persons ACTIONS, with motivation being a modifying factor. You could not be arrested for THINKING about murdering somebody.

Under this new interpretation, however, a persons THOUGHTS may be illegal, even if their ACTIONS are not ! An insane inversion of jurisprudence.

It goes even further though. ThoughtCrime charges can be levied not just by the victim, but by "anyone else". Matthew Hopkins would approve !

The Metropolitan Police removed this section of the document as soon as the media became aware of it. However, this is not good enough. This sort of thinking is  anathema to a liberal democracy, and for it to emanate from the Police is deeply concerning. The person (or people) responsible for the statement should be investigated with a view to removing them from duty, and an enquiry held as to how they came to believe in this incredibly dangerous and illiberal idea. The Commissioner should make a highly visible public statement disavowing this concept, and distancing the Met Police from it. 

But they won't. Because Hate Crime is the new Black !

 

This also isn't new. It's been that way for at least 10 years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such vagueness in a law is really just a tool for the authorities to abuse people.  Example, an officer doesn't like someone or is in a bad mood but that person hasn't done anything to warrant action by the officer, now he can just say he needed to investigate your thought process to protect the public and you're locked in an interrogation room for an indeterminate amount of time.  Were I from your country I would start a letter campaign to your MP to have this law stricken from the books.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Setton said:

This also isn't new. It's been that way for at least 10 years. 

Not really Setton. The idea that you can be prosecuted for an activity, even if that activity is not criminal (e.g. doesn't break any law), based purely on a subjective opinion of your motivations for that act, is entirely alien to British jurisprudence. 

To use a reductio ad absurdum: picking up a piece of litter is not a crime. Picking up a piece of litter in a hateful way CAN be a crime, depending on an observers personal opinion of your state of mind. 

Total madness. And exceedingly dangerous.

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Such vagueness in a law is really just a tool for the authorities to abuse people.  Example, an officer doesn't like someone or is in a bad mood but that person hasn't done anything to warrant action by the officer, now he can just say he needed to investigate your thoughts to protect the public and you locked in an interrogation room for an indeterminate amount of time.  Were I from your country I would start a letter campaign to your MP to have this law stricken from the books.

Not a bad idea OverSword.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Not really Setton. The idea that you can be prosecuted for an activity, even if that activity is not criminal (e.g. doesn't break any law), based purely on a subjective opinion of your motivations for that act, is entirely alien to British jurisprudence. 

To use a reductio ad absurdum: picking up a piece of litter is not a crime. Picking up a piece of litter in a hateful way CAN be a crime, depending on an observers personal opinion of your state of mind. 

Total madness. And exceedingly dangerous.

Not a bad idea OverSword.

Mad I agree but that has always been the case for hate crime. 

Trust me, my mum used to train police officers on it. I heard all of this years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Mad I agree but that has always been the case for hate crime. 

Trust me, my mum used to train police officers on it. I heard all of this years ago. 

Including the bit about criminalising non-criminal activities ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Including the bit about criminalising non-criminal activities ? 

Anything that is perceived by anyone as motivated by prejudice is treated as discrimination. Whether the action is legal or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Anything that is perceived by anyone as motivated by prejudice is treated as discrimination. Whether the action is legal or not.

The coppers will be knocking my door soon, i hate people who eat noisy snacks in the cinema, caravanners and Aston Villa fans.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hetrodoxly said:

The coppers will be knocking my door soon, i hate people who eat noisy snacks in the cinema, caravanners and Aston Villa fans.

Fair. Although the first one my actions might also be illegal so bit more clear cut :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Setton said:

Anything that is perceived by anyone as motivated by prejudice is treated as discrimination. Whether the action is legal or not.

That can't POSSIBLY stand up in court ? That would criminalise EVERYTHING, and give a green light to arbitrary police harassment. ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

That would criminalise EVERYTHING, and give a green light to arbitrary police harassment. ?

some would say ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

".. though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence". 

Met-Hate-Crime.jpg

... the law has ALWAYS been based on a persons ACTIONS, with motivation being a modifying factor. ...

What a storm in a teacup this thread is! The Met statement is clearly made with reference to a 'hate incident' not a 'hate crime', and the logic of what is being said is obvious. People here are choosing - whether out of ignorance or some personal agenda - to impute sinister motives to the police who are not afterall the arbitrators of what is, or is not, legal. 

A hate incident is generated by some form of complaint to the police or the police themselves suspecting a crime. No crime may have actually occurred at all. A complaint must be investigated and although the complainant may have been wrong in believing that a hate crime was committed subsequent police investigations may find that the perpetrator was criminally motivated. In other words, a hate incident situation has now become a hate crime situation because other evidence has come to light.

Edited by Ozymandias
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

What a storm in a teacup this thread is! The Met statement is clearly made with reference to a 'hate incident' not a 'hate crime', and the logic of what is being said is obvious. People here are choosing - whether out of ignorance or some personal agenda - to impute sinister motives to the police who are not afterall the arbitors of what is, or is not, legal. 

A hate incident is generated by some form of complaint to the police or the police themselves suspecting a crime. No crime may have actually occurred at all. A complaint must be investigated and although the complainant may have been wrong in believing that a hate crime was committed subsequent police investigations may find that the perpetrator was criminally motivated. In other words, a hate incident situation has now become a hate crime situation because other evidence has come to light.

Just how much funding are they pouring into these investigations, along with promotional material, while similtaneously complaining about cuts?

A report from one of today's front pages:

Police boss slams cuts after report says UK forces 'overwhelmed'

"A TOP police officer has hit out over cuts after a damning report revealed that a quarter of forces were failing to respond properly to 999 calls from the public.

Greater Manchester Police’s deputy chief constable Ian Pilling said his force had lost 2,000 officers – a quarter of the 8,148 total seven years ago. They were part of an overall reduction of 22,888 in England and Wales since 2010."

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather see resources spent on investigating domestic abuse, sex crimes, grannies being mugged on the streets, etc., than someone being offended by words.

Just where do you draw the line on "any other perceived difference" anyway?

Should police be involved in investigations if someone is called fat or old, and it upsets their delicate sensibilities?

Dealing with numbskulls is part of life, and a stretched police force should not be wasting valuable time and resources dealing with such things unless there is a genuine threat.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

That can't POSSIBLY stand up in court ? That would criminalise EVERYTHING, and give a green light to arbitrary police harassment. ? 

It is the law though. But, as we can see, it's been the law for years and nothing too bad has come of it. 

Still stupid law though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with the storm in a teacup sentiment if a guy hadn't just been convicted for telling a joke...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me old-fashioned but...

...surely the motive behind committing a perfectly legal action cannot itself be considered "criminal intent". Neither can the person behind that action be considered a "perpetrator" (within Legal Framework Terminology ) and therefore the statement "though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are" is not logically sound. Use of the word "Perpetrator" in the context of the article, implies Confirmation Bias by the author which leads on to intent to be able to Police Thoughts and indeed criminalising certain thoughts where no crime actually exists.

Yes , this is redolent of the worst excesses of Liberal "fuzzy-Logic" which in reality is actually an atavistic return to neo-Tribal mentality and needs to be called out for what it is-the grossest and most dangerous attempt at mind control.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 10:07 AM, RoofGardener said:

Under this new interpretation, however, a persons THOUGHTS may be illegal, even if their ACTIONS are not ! An insane inversion of jurisprudence.

Is this new or just an expanded explanation of the law? I ask because this doesn't seem like a new concept to me. 

For example :    if its in the legal right of an employer to fire someone for no reason (in the states its called at will employment) yet they do so because they don't like the color of the person's skin its the thought that makes the act illegal.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people really are paranoid and prone to sensationalism. The police are not going to arrest people going lawfully about their business and try to charge them with a crime based upon their reasons for doing so! Little old ladies will still be able to walk their dogs on Sunday without fear of being arrested.

This issue of criminal intent only arises in the context of a 'hate incident', i.e. where a member of the public reports what they think is a hate crime. The police were saying that the reported crime may not actually be a crime but further investigation may show that it was motivated by criminal intent based on other evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Is this new or just an expanded explanation of the law? I ask because this doesn't seem like a new concept to me. 

For example :    if its in the legal right of an employer to fire someone for no reason (in the states its called at will employment) yet they do so because they don't like the color of the person's skin its the thought that makes the act illegal.  

That's exactly what the police are saying  :tu:

It's my legal perogative to refuse to serve a customer if I so wish.  

However,  if it is subsequently discovered that I only refused to serve a customer because they were a Muslim, then whilst the refusal to serve was not a crime, the reason for doing it was.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

Some people really are paranoid and prone to sensationalism.

Sensationalism such as this?

Nazi pug: Man arrested after teaching girlfriend's dog to perform Hitler salute as a 'prank'

Tasteless, yes. Worthy of investing precious police time and resources? No.

We need to stop wrapping people in cotton wool.

If people are going to go into a state of catatonia every time they find something offensive, how the hell are they going to cope with real problems in life; with work, health, relationships, grief, etc.?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

Sensationalism? Yes, you prove my point admirably. This headline you quote above is sensationalist.

The man was not convicted of teaching the dog to perform a Nazi salute. At no time did the dog perform a Nazi salute. All it does is raise its paw. The truth is the dog doesn't understand English and hasn't a clue what the guy is on about and has only been thought  to raise its paw in response to a particular language cue; viz. 'want to gas the Jews'. The dog does not know what gas is or who the Jews are, or who the Nazi were. The dog was posed in front of the TV watching Hitler ranting in German, a language the dog does not understand. The dog does not know that its paw gesture is a Nazi salute. Dogs raise their paws all the time so that alone is not offensive. 

No. The man was convicted for misusing the internet under the Communications Act 2003 by posting and publishing offensive material online. The dog was blameless; the man was guilty of a hate crime. He could teach the dog to raise its paw to any number of offensive cues and get the dog to do it in private in front of his girlfriend if all he wanted was to show her that her dog wasn't as cute as she thought it was. It could be argued that the teaching the dog to raise its paw was just an excuse to put offensive anti-Semitic material into the public domain. He chose to be offensive.

Having said all that I would not have convicted him. I think people should be allowed to say as they please so long as they are not being threatening, aggressive, or inciting crime against the person. That way society can have a healthy debate about the issue and the offenders can be forced to defend their words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.