UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38597714

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Have you actually bothered to read the article?
No story there.

In reply to JJL:


Yes thanks but well done for the presumption.


There is a story. Whether it warrants investigation is a different story.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


Where's the presumption? I asked a question.


No. You lazily posted a clickbait-headlined non-piece that takes a lot of words to say that some professor complained about something they hadn't actually heard, the police yawned and moved on and then the professor agreed they were wrong to have raised it.

You added no commentary or insight to this non-story.

So it was really quite generous of me to imagine this might all be because you hadn't read it. But you say you have, so I am forced back to the other available conclusion.

In reply to JJL:



Which is a story.


That's for the likes of you. I'm just drawing the attention to it.


How magnanimous. Have a gold star.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
I'm no fan of Amber Rudd, but this is just ridiculous. Have you watched the video? This guy Joshua Silver is just trying to create a platform for himself and Andrew Neill just tears him apart. He simply cannot answer simply arguments put to him. Micheal Howard is also right that he should be ashamed of himself for bringing this new hate crime legislation into disrepute. (I can't believe I'm agreeing with Michael Howard !)

I don't think JLL is right to say it's a non-story, but the crux of the story is not really Amber Rudd's speech, but rather this lunatic use of new legislation. If I was being charitable I could say that Joshua Silver is picking holes in the legislation because it is also quite frankly ridiculous when implying that if someone thinks something is a hate crime then it is. I suspect though, he has looney left tendencies and probably deserves the epithet SJW and his allegations should get the short shrift they deserve.

As an aside, I suspect there are plenty of posters and that probably includes myself, that could potentially get in to trouble for some of the things that have been posted on here, just because someone thinks a hate crime has been commited. How far does it go? Does strong criticism of an argument constitute a hate crime? If so, all I can say is, guilty as charged.

In reply to JJL:



The tw*ttersphere doesn't agree with you, several journos think Rudd should respond, although I would say it shows the weakness of the NPCC position on hate crimes:

"Where any person, including police personnel, reports a hate incident which would not be the primary responsibility of another agency, it must be recorded regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element."

It looks like the filth are so used to getting beaten up on over race they've decided to offset it and beat the rest of us up too. Break the cycle guys.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I thought the fuss at the time was surrounding the suggestion that companies could be forced to disclose the number of foreigners they employed (I don't think named lists were ever floated). People were concerned that this would lead to the shaming of companies that employed lots of foreign workers.

The professor seems completely unable to articulate his arguments, in a way that would shame most undergraduates.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Can we report "dislikes" on UKC as "hate crime"?

In reply to Big Ger:

Are you claiming victim status there Big Ger?

In reply to Hugh J:



Not I, but seeing as so many have started threads on the terrible impact that "dislikes" have had on their psyche, it may be coming soon!