SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Embattle]

Assange committed a crime, in fact a couple now and much more importantly todays judgement didn't absolve him of it. I would also say what he released in to the public domain changed very few opinions when it comes to views on America.

 

[Scouse]

Jeezuz christ @Embattle. Are you really incapable of understanding that "immunity from prosecution to expose a larger crime" concept?

He's never been charged so nothing's been "proven", as you say. But ultimately - the US is guilty of committing multiple serious crimes that we wouldn't know about without him.

 

[Edmond]

That is pretty awesome.

I just finished building this:

View attachment 43492

Still waiting for mine, its on back order

 

[Job]

Proposed changes to speech freedoms and hate crime.
They are considering including private indoor conversations.

Hate crime – Law Commission

Reforming the law

www.lawcom.gov.uk

 

[Raven]

That's Sunday lunch round at yours ruined then.

 

[DaGaffer]

Proposed changes to speech freedoms and hate crime.
They are considering including private indoor conversations.

Hate crime – Law Commission

Reforming the law

www.lawcom.gov.uk

Where does it say that? FWIW I disagree with lots of so-called "hate crime" legislation (especially that religion is a protected class) but I can see no reference in the consultation to private conversations.

 

[Job]

Criminalising 'hate speech' in homes in England and Wales proposed by Law Commission

Private conversations in the home about controversial issues such as same-sex marriage or transgender ideology could result in police intervention under new hate crime proposals for England and Wales.

www.christian.org.uk

 

[MYstIC G]

 

[Lamp]

If I ordered a Lego Ghostbusters car, I'd never hear the end of it
You bought what? You wasted your money on this ? How old are you ? Six ?
No. I'm afraid that avenue of pleasure has been closed off.
Quiet, seething compliance is easier

 

[Scouse]

They should abolish the idea of hate crime.

If you've been assaulted you've been assaulted. I find it disgusting that if I'm assaulted that the people who assaulted me are at risk of lesser criminal sentence because I'm not gay, disabled, muslim or black.

 

[DaGaffer]

Criminalising 'hate speech' in homes in England and Wales proposed by Law Commission

Private conversations in the home about controversial issues such as same-sex marriage or transgender ideology could result in police intervention under new hate crime proposals for England and Wales.

www.christian.org.uk

Right. I've read it (the actual consultation paper). It does indeed suggest removing the "dwelling defence" as this article suggests, but, the reason is because the "dwelling defence" is too narrow in English Law, so a wider "private conversation" defence (which is already in the legislation but vaguely applied), which is what Canada has. In English Law currently, the only explicit venue in for a private conversation is in a private dwelling, the revision would widen the protection so you couldn't be arrested for having a private conversation at work or in the pub. Now, the flip side is that taking away the dwelling defence means that (for instance) meetings in private homes with the intention of "stirring up" (yes, this will now be a legal term if the law goes through) would not be protected by the dwelling defence.

The interesting thing about reading the actual document is just how pointless the whole thing is; there's whole sections in there which show exactly how this type of legislation is being abused (and yes the people who wrote the consultation paper are very much aware that it is being abused) and yet they seem to want to keep on playing "whack 'a mole" with more and more categories of protected groups. Its absolutely mad. (They explicitly point out two examples we've discussed on here a lot, that they know are being abused by the protected class, Jews and Trans rights activists). Its particularly bad when it comes to religion; in terms of what can be criticised and what can't, which is both baffling and at odds with a bunch of other laws and directives which insist that laws are need to be clear, transparent and understandable.

 

[Gwadien]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_6d3JBBo4s

 

[Scouse]

they seem to want to keep on playing "whack 'a mole" with more and more categories of protected groups. Its absolutely mad.

It can never be otherwise. Legislation like this is inherently discriminatory.

 

[Scouse]

Get fucked with your constant attempts to legitimise total surveillance in the world's already most-surveilled society.

(For money).

 

[Deathace]

you fuckers still on here

Russ

 

[Deebs]

you fuckers still on here

Russ

Fucking cunt where you been? How are you Russ?

 

[Bodhi]

Get fucked with your constant attempts to legitimise total surveillance in the world's already most-surveilled society.

(For money).

Yet more people going down the facial recognition route - just after we've normalised people wearing face coverings.

*Golf clap*

 

[Deathace]

Ello mate, been trying to live as best i can got made redundant in July after 15 years so unemployed.com at the moment

I had a wave of nostalgia and saw that this site was still active so thought i would chirp up

Russ

 

[Deebs]

Ello mate, been trying to live as best i can got made redundant in July after 15 years so unemployed.com at the moment

I had a wave of nostalgia and saw that this stie was still active so thought i would chirp up

Russ

Damn sorry to hear that, don't go spending the redundancy money all at once! Good to hear from you mind

 

[Deathace]

Damn sorry to hear that, don't go spending the redundancy money all at once! Good to hear from you mind

Been living off the redundancy for the last 6 months which has been a god send
What you up to lately will have to have a call and catch up maybe

Russ

 

[Deebs]

Been living off the redundancy for the last 6 months which has been a god send
What you up to lately will have to have a call and catch up maybe

Russ

Working for a telecoms company and built a CAS-T environment for them from scratch to host the multiple management platforms for them. Am loving it and really enjoy the role I am in. Get to play with the latest toys and it is nice to work for a Company which allows things to be done right. Got SC clearance a couple of months ago and an a Grandad Level 3 now

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[MYstIC G]

you fuckers still on here

Russ

Nope, we perfected BastardAI some time ago and just left it running

 

[DaGaffer]

you fuckers still on here

Russ

Good god. Waves.

 

[Wij]

you fuckers still on here

Russ

Fuck me.

(metaphorically)

 

[Zarjazz]

you fuckers still on here

Russ

We get banned from any other place we try to escape to.

 

[Job]

Right. I've read it (the actual consultation paper). It does indeed suggest removing the "dwelling defence" as this article suggests, but, the reason is because the "dwelling defence" is too narrow in English Law, so a wider "private conversation" defence (which is already in the legislation but vaguely applied), which is what Canada has. In English Law currently, the only explicit venue in for a private conversation is in a private dwelling, the revision would widen the protection so you couldn't be arrested for having a private conversation at work or in the pub. Now, the flip side is that taking away the dwelling defence means that (for instance) meetings in private homes with the intention of "stirring up" (yes, this will now be a legal term if the law goes through) would not be protected by the dwelling defence.

The interesting thing about reading the actual document is just how pointless the whole thing is; there's whole sections in there which show exactly how this type of legislation is being abused (and yes the people who wrote the consultation paper are very much aware that it is being abused) and yet they seem to want to keep on playing "whack 'a mole" with more and more categories of protected groups. Its absolutely mad. (They explicitly point out two examples we've discussed on here a lot, that they know are being abused by the protected class, Jews and Trans rights activists). Its particularly bad when it comes to religion; in terms of what can be criticised and what can't, which is both baffling and at odds with a bunch of other laws and directives which insist that laws are need to be clear, transparent and understandable.

You can already be racist against any identifiable group.
Of course white people like scousers might have an uphill struggle taking obvious criminality association stereotypes to court.

Because...well white and all.

 

[Yoni]

you fuckers still on here

Russ

*fluffle*

 

[Job]

Its a bit difficult to call this one.
Are they admitting black people have a specific culture of violent music and are exempt from something which everyone surely is exempt from by default in law.
Well outside the farce of being able to paint someone in a bad light in front of a jury...which is strangely OK as long as someone clever does it.

Rap Lyrics Now Admissible as Court Evidence: A Dangerous Precedent (Guest Column)

A Maryland court ruled that rap lyrics may be admitted as evidence of a defendant’s guilt. It sets a dangerous precedent, writes Dina LaPolt.

variety.com

 

[Raven]

*twitch*