• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

US Politics

Wisbech Eagle said:
However it is always the Judge who decides whether that perception is reasonable. Not the alleged victim.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. For the crime to have been committed originally is the perception of the "victim". Which can be anyone connected or not to the original direction of the post. The CPS decides whether to prosecute. The judge often decides little - rather the appropriate sentence. If people plead not guilty, they will likely face a jury - as is supposedly a right.
 
ASCPFC said:
It's entirely how it's perceived by a person, or other to consititue a possible, perceived offence - as Teddy shows above.

Then the CPS selectively chooses what to prosecute - as shown and noted by yourself too.
Click to expand...
And as I just pointed out to Teddy it’s the Judge who determines the perception, not who is said to be perceiving it.

The CPS’s role is solely to avoid wasting Court time by verifying the strength of the evidence and the legal basis of the case. They don’t select on opinion. They select on the law.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
And as I just pointed out to Teddy it’s the Judge who determines the perception, not who is said to be perceiving it.

The CPS’s role is solely to avoid wasting Court time by verifying the strength of the evidence and the legal basis of the case. They don’t select on opinion. They select on the law.
Click to expand...
You can point it out but you're incorrect. But there's little point in me saying "I'm right, you're wrong" all day. It's not going to make any difference to the perception of the facts and the interpretation of reality.
The judge cannot retrospectively say if someone should or should not have been offended: which is the sole criterion for the "offence". They can make precedence by throwing cases out but they clearly will not be doing that.
And, as I pointed out, they will not be ruling on guilt or not. They will be handing out sentences - with some leeway there, granted. Or passing the case to a higher court with a jury and possibly higher sentencing power.
 
ASCPFC said:
That is not the case. For the crime to have been committed originally is the perception of the "victim". Which can be anyone connected or not to the original direction of the post. The CPS decides whether to prosecute. The judge often decides little - rather the appropriate sentence. If people plead not guilty, they will likely face a jury - as is supposedly a right.
Click to expand...
Individuals cannot prosecute for hate crime!

Allegations by individuals, or organisations, must be brought to the police who then investigate to determine if an offence has been committed which necessitates prosecution. Anyone trying to bring a baseless complaint risks being prosecuted themselves for wasting police time.

Whether to proceed, or not, is at the sole discretion of the CPS.

If proceeded it is the Judge, or jury, who then decides the outcome.
 
ASCPFC said:
You can point it out but you're incorrect. But there's little point in me saying "I'm right, you're wrong" all day. It's not going to make any difference to the perception of the facts and the interpretation of reality.
The judge cannot retrospectively say if someone should or should not have been offended: which is the sole criterion for the "offence". They can make precedence by throwing cases out but they clearly will not be doing that.
And, as I pointed out, they will not be ruling on guilt or not. They will be handing out sentences - with some leeway there, granted. Or passing the case to a higher court with a jury and possibly higher sentencing power.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but it’s you who are misinformed. Read my previous response.
 
'America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between'.

Or is that the other way round.

The USA is the moronic bully who terrorised you in the playground.

Tell them to f**k off.

😎
 
steeleye20 said:
'America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between'.

Or is that the other way round.

The USA is the moronic bully who terrorised you in the playground.

Tell them to f**k off.

😎
Click to expand...
How will I do that? Will I take out a full page ad in the New York Times? Or tell my mate to pass them a note? I'll meet them after school in the park?
 
ASCPFC said:
Then the CPS are incorrect too.


Clearly states that is mainly based on the subjective opinion of the "victim". Also states anything reported will be logged as a crime. There is no involvement of a judge in that.
Click to expand...
With all due respect you are getting muddled up.

Just because someone feels offended is not nearly enough. The police investigate and the CPS verify if any alleged perception is at a level deserving of prosecution. The alleged victims opinion has no involvement in that. There needs to be a verifiable offence committed. The perception alone is not the crime. That perception is also not necessarily that of the victim. It can be anyone.

A guide to how those believing they have witnessed hate crime should act is here:-

 
Wisbech Eagle said:
With all due respect you are getting muddled up.

Just because someone feels offended is not nearly enough. The police investigate and the CPS verify if any alleged perception is at a level deserving of prosecution. The alleged victims opinion has no involvement in that. There needs to be a verifiable offence committed. The perception alone is not the crime. That perception is also not necessarily that of the victim. It can be anyone.

A guide to how those believing they have witnessed hate crime should act is here:-

Click to expand...
I knew you would refute what was written. What carries more weight? The CPS or report.org? Will I post what the Daily Mail says? Others can judge from what's been put here. I won't get into anymore correct or incorrect with you. Oh no he didn't/ oh yes he did. You're clouding what is very clearly written here.
 
ASCPFC said:
I knew you would refute what was written. What carries more weight? The CPS or report.org? Will I post what the Daily Mail says? Others can judge from what's been put here. I won't get into anymore correct or incorrect with you. Oh no he didn't/ oh yes he did. You're clouding what is very clearly written here.
Click to expand...
That the offence is about how actions are perceived doesn’t mean that those doing the perceiving decide on prosecutions. The CPS explanation of the offences doesn’t conflict with that in any way. The police and the CPS weigh the evidence. They don’t just proceed because someone perceives an offence.

I said you are muddled and I am afraid you are. You are adopting the typical stance of those for whom hate crime is, for them, an invasion of freedom of speech, and only the overly sensitive feelings of those who are easily offended. It isn’t.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
That the offence is about how actions are perceived doesn’t mean that those doing the perceiving decide on prosecutions. The CPS explanation of the offences doesn’t conflict with that in any way. The police and the CPS weigh the evidence. They don’t just proceed because someone perceives an offence.

I said you are muddled and I am afraid you are. You are adopting the typical stance of those for whom hate crime is, for them, an invasion of freedom of speech, and only the overly sensitive feelings of those who are easily offended. It isn’t.
Click to expand...
So would you count some of the things you've said about Farage or Robinson as hate crimes?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
That the offence is about how actions are perceived doesn’t mean that those doing the perceiving decide on prosecutions. The CPS explanation of the offences doesn’t conflict with that in any way. The police and the CPS weigh the evidence. They don’t just proceed because someone perceives an offence.

I said you are muddled and I am afraid you are. You are adopting the typical stance of those for whom hate crime is, for them, an invasion of freedom of speech, and only the overly sensitive feelings of those who are easily offended. It isn’t.
Click to expand...
Interesting that no one in this debate has given a thought to those who have been arrested, sometimes in front of their children, because someone had felt offended by something they have said/posted. Many are then released without charge as claims were baseless. The trauma experienced must be horrific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top