In todays news...

[dern]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

[dern]

In other words… we know you can say this stuff but why would you want to and why would you defend any does?

[Mussels]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

It's the right to criticise someone that I worry for, sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit but it shouldn't be illegal.

[dern]

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

It's the right to criticise someone that I worry for, sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit but it shouldn't be illegal.

It isn’t.

[irie]

So is your point that given it’s legal to say stuff that’s offensive, then it’s ok to say stuff that’s offensive and people shouldn’t complain when they’re offended by it?

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

That's not what he said, you are (intentionally?) missing the point.

[dern]

The point is police should stick to recording crimes and not just anything that hurts someone's feelings.

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

That's not what he said, you are (intentionally?) missing the point.

I addressed what he said. That is that the police would look in to a potential incitement... that is a crime. They don't just look in to hurtful comments. They haven't looked in to what he said as far as I'm aware (although they did in the case Jo Brand, posted earlier as some kind of justification for what JC said). So therefore they are recording crime and not just anything that hurt's someone's feelings.

Are you both missing my point... why is it ok just to be bloody unpleasant?

[Yambo]

I addressed what he said. That is that the police would look in to a potential incitement... that is a crime. They don't just look in to hurtful comments. They haven't looked in to what he said as far as I'm aware (although they did in the case Jo Brand, posted earlier as some kind of justification for what JC said). So therefore they are recording crime and not just anything that hurt's someone's feelings.

Are you both missing my point... why is it ok just to be bloody unpleasant?

The police have, and may still be investigating and recording non-crime supposed hate incidents. If there is no crime, why are the police wasting police time, which is iirc, itself a crime?

[dern]

I addressed what he said. That is that the police would look in to a potential incitement... that is a crime. They don't just look in to hurtful comments. They haven't looked in to what he said as far as I'm aware (although they did in the case Jo Brand, posted earlier as some kind of justification for what JC said). So therefore they are recording crime and not just anything that hurt's someone's feelings.

Are you both missing my point... why is it ok just to be bloody unpleasant?

The police have, and may still be investigating and recording non-crime supposed hate incidents. If there is no crime, why are the police wasting police time, which is iirc, itself a crime?

Any crime can be a hate crime if there's an element of racism, sexism and the like. It's still a crime that needs to be investigated... there's no such thing as a hate crime that isn't also a crime. Verbal abuse can also be a crime so shouting racist, sexist, homophobic stuff is a crime *and* a hate crime and needs to be investigated. All reported crime needs to be investigated.

Tell me why it's ok for JC to be so bloody unpleasant please and why you're defending him. We know he can, tell me why you think it's fine for him to do so.

[Yambo]

Any crime can be a hate crime if there's an element of racism, sexism and the like. It's still a crime that needs to be investigated... there's no such thing as a hate crime that isn't also a crime. Verbal abuse can also be a crime so shouting racist, sexist, homophobic stuff is a crime *and* a hate crime and needs to be investigated. All reported crime needs to be investigated.

From the BBC article that was linked to earlier:

An ex-police officer has won a legal challenge against a national policy for forces to record gender-critical views as non-crime "hate incidents".

It appears to me that you can have a 'hate incident' that isn't a crime. I have no problems with the police investigating possible crimes but when it turns out that the incident they've been investigating is found not to be a crime it may well be recorded as a non crime. If there's no crime then there should be no recording of the event. It's really that simple.

Tell me why it's ok for JC to be so bloody unpleasant please and why you're defending him. We know he can, tell me why you think it's fine for him to do so.

You're hallucinating and seeing things that aren't there. I am not defending Clarkson. Why would I?

Oh hold on, is that being unpleasant? Are you offended? I'm just a bit offended that you are saying things that aren't true like "I'm defending him." Why is OK for you to cause offence and not the arsehole Clarkson?

Clarkson has rarely done anything that could be taken seriously. Why would he change?

I can't stand the clown by the way. For a supposed motoring journalist he was remarkably I'll informed on road safety issues for example.

It may well be that he's a misogynist arsehole but for me he's just an arsehole. I'm surprised anyone is interested.

[dern]

It appears to me that you can have a 'hate incident' that isn't a crime. I have no problems with the police investigating possible crimes but when it turns out that the incident they've been investigating is found not to be a crime it may well be recorded as a non crime. If there's no crime then there should be no recording of the event. It's really that simple.

How do you determine whether a crime is committed if you don't record it and investigate it?

You're hallucinating and seeing things that aren't there. I am not defending Clarkson. Why would I?

Oh hold on, is that being unpleasant? Are you offended? I'm just a bit offended that you are saying things that aren't true like "I'm defending him." Why is OK for you to cause offence and not the arsehole Clarkson?

Ok, be nice please. You knew my position and you're chipping in with an opinion about hate incidents to counter that.

Anyway, have a good Christmas.

[irie]

They have to (and they’re right to) investigate anyone who could be inciting other people.

You just seem to be defending the right to be unpleasant, why?

That's not what he said, you are (intentionally?) missing the point.

I addressed what he said. That is that the police would look in to a potential incitement... that is a crime. They don't just look in to hurtful comments. They haven't looked in to what he said as far as I'm aware (although they did in the case Jo Brand, posted earlier as some kind of justification for what JC said). So therefore they are recording crime and not just anything that hurt's someone's feelings.

Are you both missing my point... why is it ok just to be bloody unpleasant?

You did not address what he said, you instead painted him as supporting a negative scenario which happens to be consistent with your view as (iiirc) an ex police officer.

[Yambo]

Thanks, you too.

I'll be in South Africa. I'll have New Year in Botswana and my birthday in Kruger Nat Park.

[Horse]

The police have, and may still be investigating and recording non-crime supposed hate incidents. If there is no crime, why are the police wasting police time, which is iirc, itself a crime?

Surely, until they investigate, it's 'alleged' crime? That 'waste' might actually be determining, and telling the reportee, that it's not a crime.

If their job is to investigate, then they're not wasting time. Don't the CPS decide whether to prosecute?

[Yambo]

The police have, and may still be investigating and recording non-crime supposed hate incidents. If there is no crime, why are the police wasting police time, which is iirc, itself a crime?

Surely, until they investigate, it's 'alleged' crime? That 'waste' might actually be determining, and telling the reportee, that it's not a crime.

If their job is to investigate, then they're not wasting time. Don't the CPS decide whether to prosecute?

Jeez, you lot can be difficult.

The police investigating incidents is OK. It's what they are paid to do. It's OK.

The issue is not the police investigating possible crimes, that's what they're paid to do. It's OK.

The issue is not the police investigating and passing details onto the CPS who decide whether or not to prosecute. That's what we pay them for. It's OK.

The issue is the police recording incidents, on a national database, as "non-crime hate incidents" i.e. when no crime has been committed. The police are, or have been recording 'non-crime hate incidents' so why is felt necessary to have a national database of non-crime hate incidents? What would it be used for? Are you on it?

Quite simply it would/could be used to curtail free speech. Upset someone and the police know, from a national database that you've got form. You've no criminal record because you haven't committed a crime but you are earmarked as an obnoxious twat. You may not, of course, be an obnoxious twat, the people you have offended may be the obnoxious twats or even going out of their way to cause trouble for you but you've got form and if and when offending someone becomes a criminal offence, they, the police, already have you tagged.

That, in plain simple terms is wrong.

Clarkson is an obnoxious twat, however his name should not be on a database of supposedly obnoxious twats because quite simply there should not be a database of non-crime hate incidents. For Clarkson, it's not necessary as most of the population know he's an obnoxious twat.

[Count Steer]

Looking on the bright side, the e-uproar and general agreement that Clarkson is a bloke that does obnoxious for money seems to have constrained all those that would have probably piled in to declare how totally they agreed with him. All we have left is a shadow-boxing discussion about his right to say it in a 'newspaper'.

[ZRX61]

Any crime can be a hate crime if there's an element of racism, sexism and the like. It's still a crime that needs to be investigated... there's no such thing as a hate crime that isn't also a crime. Verbal abuse can also be a crime so shouting racist, sexist, homophobic stuff is a crime *and* a hate crime and needs to be investigated. All reported crime needs to be investigated.

Tell me why it's ok for JC to be so bloody unpleasant please and why you're defending him. We know he can, tell me why you think it's fine for him to do so.

The local media here has just reported on race based hate crimes. They listed the various types of race based hate crimes & how many were committed in the LA area over the past year.

If the crime involves Asians attacking Blacks or Hispanics, it's a hate crime.
If the crime involves Hispanics attacking Asians or Blacks, it's a hate crime.
If the crime involves Whites attacking Blacks, Hispanics or Asians, it's a hate crime.

If the crime involves Hispanics, Blacks or Asians attacking Whitey it's not a hate crime. In fact, they don't even bother to tally the numbers. They didn't mention any crimes at all where Whites were targeted by people who aren't White, they fall under *other crimes* (meaning not a hate crime).

I'm not sure why the fuck they need to break it down like that instead of just listing "race based hate crimes".

They did report on religion based hate crimes which apart from the usual anti-semitic attacks also included Asian women attacking Easter displays... Then had to admit it was just the one Asian woman who has a long history of attacking one particular display after they had made it seem there were dozens of attacks going on every month across the LA area.

[demographic]

Oh Clarksons great, I wouldnt want him shut down.
Its dead easy spotting utter bellends cos they're often spouting how much they love Clarkson. Totally suckbutting him.

Keep him.
Almost like every town needs a shithole nightclub, it keeps most of the twerps away from the nicer places.

[Ant]

That's where Clarky get's it right, the arm waving shouty haters who are able to spend so much personal time in a rage over him, it's pure poetry.

[demographic]

That's where Clarky get's it right, the arm waving shouty haters who are able to spend so much personal time in a rage over him, it's pure poetry.

Exactly, like I said.

[Ant]

That's where Clarky get's it right, the arm waving shouty haters who are able to spend so much personal time in a rage over him, it's pure poetry.

Exactly, like I said.

No, that's not what you said, what you said had hate for those who like Clarky.

I don't mind him, I don't agree with everything he said, but I like his direct style. The easily offended do get ruffled.