UK.gov to treat online abuse as seriously as IRL hate crime The UK's Crown Prosecution Service has pledged to tackle online abuse with the same seriousness as it does hate crimes committed in the flesh. Following public concern about the increasing amount of racist, anti-religious, homophobic and transphobic attacks on social media, the CPS has today (August 21) published a new set of …
What about the xenophobic elements of Plaid Cymru?
Personally, I've never met any. Met a fair number of Welsh people (not just PC members) who get seriously pissed off by tourists who get angry and complain when they hear people speaking Welsh in Wales. Ditto when the BBC broadcast a 'discussion' (between two non-Welsh speakers, one of them with a lengthy track-record of hating Wales and everything Welsh) on Newsnight asking whether the Welsh language is a 'help or hindrance' to Wales. Would they ask if the Scots accent is a help or hindrance to hosting an Arts festival?
Wales is not part of England. Visitors welcome, if they treat the country and the people with respect. Croeso i Gymru - please bring a bulging wallet.
Welsh leading consonants may undergo mutations depending on what precedes them:
Isn't it Croeso i Cymru?
No - the Celtic languages enjoy a wonderful mystery called 'mutations' - boring languages change the endings of words, Celtic languages also change the beginnings! Lots of complicated rules about what changes and when, but trust me when I say that following 'i' ( = 'to') we get a 'soft' mutation (treiglad meddal) which makes a following C become a G.
It can be fun - "I live in Wales" = Rydw i'n byw yng Nghymru
I love England and Wales "Rydw i'n caru Lloegr a Chymru" (not often heard, I must admit)
Try googling it, and then get an ice-pack and several paracetamol. (But Welsh is easier than Irish!)
"Welsh is easier than Irish!"There was a Merkin tourist and his wife in a restaurant in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. They were arguing over the pronunciation of the place and the bloke asks the waitress how to pronounce it. The waitress leaned close to him and said, very slowly, The Penrhos Arms.
Croeso i Gymru - please bring a bulging wallet.
Visitors would, if the Welsh would try to make it attractive. Spent a couple of weeks in your neck of the woods recently, and over time have spent several cumulative years on holiday there. Facilities are poor, hospitality is weak, communications dreadful, food even worse. And the locals want people to come and spend money there?
A complete Cardigan bay highway (with esturial bridges) would not only dramatically improve the Welsh transport system., but also be a tourist-attracting, world class drive. The shipping-free Cardigan bay could be a watersports mecca, if there were sufficient marinas and the facilities to serve them. The clean waters and excellent livestock conditions give some of the best food opportunities in the world - but really good, friendly restaurants are rare as hen's teeth. Wales could have capitalised on up-market second homes and holiday cottages - but the extremist arm of the Welsh nationalists saw that off, and now all you've got is thousands of acres of low-spending caravan parks. Despite the opportunity for hotels with incredible cuisine and beautiful views, these remain few and far between. With weather that is inherently given to rain, where's the good quality indoor attractions? Where's the modern resort parks (eg Center Parcs - not everyone's cup of tea, but a good way of laundering middle class cash into the local economy)? Look at the prevalence of (dreadful, dreadful quality) chip shops, greasy spoon cafes, third rate B&Bs, vast caravan parks, cheap tat amusement arcades, really poor communications, utter dumps like Machynlleth, Towyn and Dolgellau.
Wales caters for the market segment who think that Marbella is up market and costly. It doesn't need to be like that, but absent any vision by the people "leading" Wales, nothing will change.
@Ledswinger
Okay, I'll bite.
Why would I (and my neighbours) want to live in a giant Disneyland theme-park? I agree that roads could be a bit (lot) better but it's a trade-off. On the plus side lousy roads tends to keep down the tourist to sensible numbers (and, in some sad cases, literally reduce the numbers). But a Cardigan Bay highway? A world-class drive for Clarkson and pals to show off on, paid for by the locals.
Up market second-homes? What do the locals get out of that, apart from higher house prices? Houses occupied by outsiders who drop in for a couple of weeks a year, bringing most of their groceries from Waitrose in Maidenhead. Where are their cleaners meant to live if they can't afford a house? Second homes kill communities (not just in Wales). I've visited villages in Cornwall and Wales where there are 30+ houses, and only one is lived in all-year. A few nice commercial holiday cottages is a different matter, and we have a reasonable number of those (and glamping/yurts etc)
And we have some excellent chippies - Hennighans in Machynlleth, Lloyds in Lampeter, New Celtic in Aberaeron (and ace honey ice-cream round the corner).
Center Parcs? If you want that sort of thing go to Center Parcs. Don't demand that places change to meet your requirements, perhaps you should change your expectations.
I take your point about Towyn, but that's been turned overwhelmingly into a cheap holiday destination. (Don't even ask about Barmouth). But Machynlleth is a lovely little town, populated by real people (if with quite strong hippy habits) - I had a really tasty chorizo and chickpea stew in Caffi Alys the other day. Decent cafes, pubs, real small shops (local butchers, bakers), art gallery, park, market (Wednesday) lots of junk shops to amuse visitors, Comedy festival, El Sueño Existe festival, Classical music festival etc. Handy for Centre for Alternative Technology.
I suppose it depends on what sort of visitor you want to attract. Walkers tend to stay in local B+Bs, and frequent local pubs and restaurants, and spend their money locally. Cottagers (I'm sure that's not the word) tend to explore the area. Caravanners tend to stay on the site and don't disturb the locals. You'd hardly know they were there (interesting historical note - most of the caravan sites are on former WWII military bases. War ends, guns, tanks and nissen huts etc removed, lots of concrete bases left. What else are the farmers going to do?)
In the end it's down to what we want. Wales isn't a theme park. It's a living country, where people live. Their needs come first. As I said before, nice visitors are welcome, but don't expect may-pole dancing on the village green.
"tasty chorizo and chickpea stew"
How traditional of you! Maybe next time try something equally Welsh, like pizza?
"El Sueño Existe"
Cool! Shall we all dance the cueca? And we'll celebrate such traditional Welsh foodstuffs as empanadas, cazuela and sopaipillas, along with tomatoes, chillis, potatoes and maize ... Let's not forget llamas and alpacas (sheep are just a diversion for furriners). And the national bird, the condor (you just thought it was a dragon ... ).
More seriously, do you visit Micronesia to sample hamburgers and hot dogs washed down with a Budweiser at US air bases?
"Maybe next time try something equally Welsh, like pizza?"Potato and leek soup? Dragon pies? Yummy :-)
But as you note potatoes are hardly native to Wales, nor are dragons; they're Chinese.
"More seriously, do you visit Micronesia to sample hamburgers and hot dogs washed down with a Budweiser at US air bases?"Holy fuck! have a care there jake. Some of us have sensitive stomachs.
Visitors would, if the Welsh would try to make it attractive. Spent a couple of weeks in your neck of the woods recently, and over time have spent several cumulative years on holiday there. Facilities are poor, hospitality is weak, communications dreadful, food even worse. And the locals want people to come and spend money there?
...
Wales caters for the market segment who think that Marbella is up market and costly. It doesn't need to be like that, but absent any vision by the people "leading" Wales, nothing will change.
... and yet you keep coming back...
Sigh. You seriously wrote that over-generalised bilge?
Seems I should describe England based on my visits to Blackpool, Brighton, and Great Yarmouth.
I'm not agreeing with your attacks on North Wales, but have to ask if you've been to South Wales, or the West?
Silly question. No doubt you are an expert on all areas of Wales to be able to come to that conclusion.
Incidentally, your whole tone comes across as condescending and patronising. You seem to think Wales is some sort of theme park, and one that is crap because it doesn't cater entirely to your needs.
Pen-Y-Gors has answered your other points.
I never expected such a twatty post from you. Katie Hopkins would be proud.
I'm not certain where you are going with that comment. Is "your" beach the only thing that Wales has going for it in your estimation? If so, I suggest you get out a bit more. Strange as it may sound, I actually like Wales.
However, you brought it up ... I can match Rhossili Bay[0] with ten beaches that you can visit in a single day's drive, and all in the bay area. See this map:
https://www.californiabeaches.com/map/best-beaches-point-reyes-national-seashore/
And please note that that doesn't include beaches near San Gregorio, Pescadero, Halfmoon Bay, Pillar Point, Montara and Pacifica. Nor San Francisco's beaches (China Beach is my .fav), nor the beaches of Marin County, nor the beaches at China Camp (a virtually unknown picnic destination).
HTH, HAND
[0] A guess, but an educated one.
""My" beach is in the top 10 beaches of the world - the only one in Europe. "Only beach in Europe? How sad... You ought to come and visit some of Australia's sometime... We've got spares , but you're not having them.
"If the wildlife doesn't get you then the plantlife will"Actually, you need to eat the plant-life in order for it to kill you.* The blackbean, strychnine tree, angels' trumpets, and milky mangrove are all toxic trees, or large shrubs. My advice is to never eat any plant larger than your head!
* Eucalyptus trees drop their limbs, mostly during wind storms. Don't stand under them during wind storms. Simple...
Under no circumstances should anyone f*ck Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson.
They could f*ck each other but then that would produce the bastard child Hitler and begin the cycle of destruction described in the new old testament bible v2 where we have an eclipse and everyone gets eaten by locusts and frogs.
IRL – in real life. Used among online gaming communities mostly.
From my research (mainly watching Big Bang Theory I must admit) I didn't think hardcore members of the online gaming communities had any concept of 'RL'.
(Although when I were a lad I did find D&D was quite absorbing at times)
It has to be hate specifically directed at a person because of their ownership/association of a protected characteristic
Unfortunately that's considered as 'political correctness gorn maad' for the people who don't have enough mirror neurons to be able to put themselves in someone else's shoes.
We're going to have to protect the Far right from the Far left?
Fascists from Communists?
Protect Hate speech as free speech because it's in the eye of the beholder?
The world has gone mad, but the easily offended and entitled have no sense and are
being courted by Politicians until they too will feel RL hit them hard, then maybe they
will see the light.
"It has to be hate specifically directed at a person because of their ownership/association of a protected characteristic. I.E. Gender, religion, sexuality, disability - all the same ones that businesses cannot discriminate in the name of"
That's going to open for some interesting discussions in court. For example, very recently, in those forums, I learnt that speaking online of someone, spurring he is a jew (in an offensive manner), has the following form (in some online racist places): (((John Doe))) (can't recall if it was parenthesis or other and how many).
So, by this definition, only writing that would be hate speech ... Good luck for the lawyer on this, with this ...
"
It has to be hate specifically directed at a person because of their ownership/association of a protected characteristic. I.E. Gender, religion, sexuality, disability
"
Would that include saying nasty things about paedophiles? If so, the police could make a killing on mumsnet and the comments section of the DM.
It has to be hate specifically directed at a person because of their ownership/association of a protected characteristic
Case law would differ, R v Viscount St Davids, convicted of menacing communications for a post in a private facebook group of which the victim was not a member.
Although I guess not specifically a "hate crime"...
If I start my comment with "I love you but" does that exempt me from hate speech?
Let's see how that works
"Dear evil, hate-filled nazi scum, I love you, but sadly I am sure that your disease-ridden souls will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity unless you repent"
Hmmmm, yes, I quite like that. Hate the sin but love the sinner. Theologically sound.
Well intentioned but the wording I've seen is horrific.
It would seem (according to the summary I've read on cps.gov.uk) that there are very few guidelines and the definition of it being a hate crime or not seems to hinge on if the victim perceives it to be so (as long as it can also be argued it's a criminal offense) or EVEN if a "professionally offended" bystander perceives it to be.
That is bonkers. Grade A bonkers.
********************
From cps.gov.uk:
"The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS have agreed a common definition of hate crime: "Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."
************************
Casts a very wide net if all it takes to be a hate crime is someone being offended/upset.
I agree that withholding hostility and prejudice have always been good ideas. I think that the wording is very broad and wonder if upsetting people's idea's (values and religious beliefs) will be enough to get one in trouble. Whether a person is religious or not is of little concern to me, "BUT" there are cultural norms in some parts of the world that are horrendous and when people start to push their religious values one should be able to ask for any evidence that any god ever existed and then dismiss their pretend evidence scientifically.
I am not an expert :-)
I would read this as, the beliefs of a religion are not protected, nor are the beliefs of a religious person, merely how they are treated in regard to those beliefs.
E.G.
"<insert deity here> clearly is imaginary, and if you disagree, prove it". OK
"<insert deity here> clearly is imaginary, therefore you, and all your fellow <insert religion here> are fuckwits", Not OK
Might be hard to unpick or know exactly where you stand from a legal viewpoint, but "Hostility or prejudice" is pretty clear. Keep these to yourself and you'll be fine
Perceived hostility of prejudice.
This is a good catch, it doesn't matter if you actually wrote anything wrong, if someone read it that way the law applies.
If I slightly upset you, according to the law I've been hostile.
Now all you have to do is say "i'm sure it's because i'm asian/black/yellow/christian/gay/trans/disabled/jewish/a mulsim etc"
Hate crime.
Probably would get thrown out/not pursued but still, it would be within their power now.
Many things are a crime. If I call you names and it upsets you, that is a hostile act in the eyes of the law.
(try calling a police officer names, or repeatedly swearing at them)
So there's your crime.
Now all we need is for YOU, the victim, to feel it was motivated by (insert thing I might be prejudiced against/ a bigot about) and we have a hate crime.
Police officers need to have a thick skin to deal effectively with certain strands of society.
Its an old problem and I think you'll find that there are more appropriate and effective statutes available to them to deal with the it.
"So someone who politely criticises your viewpoint in an online forum isn't going to qualify how ever much you're offended."
unless he's got the wrong "political position" in which case the appropriate level of censorship and "chilling effect" applies. It doesn't matter HOW polite you are, when this level of potential censorship is taken to its logical extreme.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation will be writing a series on Censorship, and the first installment from the other day can be found here: Free Speech, EFF
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-future-free-expression
It's amazing just how dense people are, that can't recognize the real threat. The vast majority of nasty comments here are from dedicated leftist. And they fail to see the dangers of promoting censorship. And when they lose the right to post anything, there will be NO WAY to be heard in anything!
So, if, as an impartial bystander I feel genuinely offended or hurt by the protests of the amateur or professional offendee's offence and choose to make a suitable complaint that I find his/ her/ its/ whatever's offence offensive or threatening to my moderate, honest and sincere beliefs ....
Yup, totally bonkers
It seems reasonable to treat online abuse like abuse in the street (as if you were shouting in somebody's face). In fact, I thought it was already treated like that.
The problem with a specific "hate speech" law is that it could be used as a means to silence criticism or dissent, leading to the "safe space" rubbish we see on some university campuses, bottling up extremism, and eventually promoting hate rather than reducing it.
"online" isn't the problem. "anonymity" is the problem. If Twitter could verify users' real names and addresses before letting them post, everyone would play (reaosonably) nice. I don't know technically how that could be done, but if you can figure it out you will be a rich man.
The problem with a specific "hate speech" law is that it could be used as a means to silence criticism or dissent
Absolutely. Worryingly, it's already being used as such, here and across the pond where they have free speech laws. As someone in a few minority groups* I'm appalled at how hate speech laws are being abused by "community leaders", largely to silence any alternative discourse to liberal left wing "diversity" ideals.
* No, I am not listing them as I don't see why I should have to qualify my opinions with labels as if that makes them more important/valuable, and I refuse to buy into minority status grievance-victimhood BS.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/hate_crime_leaflet_support.pdf
"There is no legal definition of hostility so the CPS uses the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Unfriendliness, resentment and dislike?
Oh yes, this idea is bullet proof...
A cartoon tyrant naturally bangs up those who call him bad things.
His modern equivalent, Luciana Berger, has been on the radio today, proudly telling us that two people are in prison for using the language of the playground online about her. Specifically, the phrase "Jewish Bitch". Not a phrase I would use, but I could be sorely tempted to make an exception just for her. Though on reflection, it would seem unduly harsh towards both jews and bitches.
p.s. Anyone care to admit their age by recognising the reference in the title?
the 3 major religions that worships one god
can be described as
1. fair comment lets ignore it
2. online hate speech worthy of a fine
3. online hate speech with genocide worthy of a prison sentence
Depending which one you criticise and the mood of the bored plod whos having to listen to the umpteenth complaint that day.
Perhaps its better if I dont say anything bad about religion.......
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE B*******DS WANT YOU TO DO
Can you imagine the court cases where the nazi is whining that his twitter feed is full of "f. you nazi" and goes on to win?
A person can't pick their genetics, their born-into nationality, their (dis)ability, their GLBT status (yes, I know there are posers!), etc. These are all out of our personal control.
But politics and religion is a choice! Should be fair game, just as any other choice like vi/EMACS, C/C++, Mac/PC, football team, autosport and etc.
Or maybe we should be jailing people for laughing at folks using the wrong brand of surfboard!
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"As any fule kno, angels lack extension and mass so a scholastic's answer would be an infinite number. Of course that's not scientific. Anders Sandberg presented a calculation based on theories of information physics and quantum gravity, establishing an upper bound of 8.6766×1049 angels.
There's zero evidence that any scholastic theologian ever debated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It appears to be of considerably more interest to modern physicists. Go figure...
The exact phrase didn't exist until fairly recently, but the concept was debated at least as early as the 11th century. The actual meaning has evolved into something like "Oh, wonderful. Yet another pointless, irrational debate attempting to draw the conversation away from the point" ... but you know that already, don't you?
"The exact phrase didn't exist until fairly recently, but the concept was debated at least as early as the 11th century."At the pre-university level, maybe. Mostly it's used to denigrate the creators of great cathedrals that are still standing. Milan for example, built 600 years ago. Then there are such "trivial" inventions as:
* The mechanical clock
* The printing press
* Gunpowder
* Water and wind mills
* Spectacles
* Public libraries
* Improved quadrants and astrolabes
* The stirrup
* Mild steel
* The crossbow
* The mouldboard plough
but you knew that already, didn't you?
"If you consider Thomas Aquinas "pre-university". I wouldn't.Despite my having read Aquinas's Summa (definitely not pre-university) I cannot recall anything remotely resembling "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". Evidence required.As for the rest of yours: Oh, wonderful. Yet another pointless, irrational debate attempting to draw the conversation away from the point."
Er, you introduced angels into the debate jake, not me! Your statement had as much relevance to this thread as my pointing out that modern physicists believe black holes emit working television sets, and leather-bound volumes of the complete works of Shakespeare would have had.
This goes under "really trying to keep the lid on"
Maybe they can succeed.
Social peace at any cost (including behaving like one of those mythical Wandering Nazis that one wants to battle so vigorously in case one finally finds them) is a good idea -- if one has a plan.
For some, the plan consists in getting to the Carribean mansion before SHTF.
Not so good for most.
Oh well, China can pick up the peaces.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
