Jimmy Carr - Offensive jokes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hightower

That's a classic case of the kettle calling the frying pan. Absolute classic. Thank you, you have made my day :D

---

Don't see how. I've presented a law, been giving training on the subject, and have experience of that law. As yet all I've had in response is 'that's rubbish' and 'reading too much Daily Mail'.

I don't see what else I can do to clarify what the law actually states.

Section 5 is very clear that all someone has to do is be threatening, abusive or insulting within sight or hearing of someone 'likely to be cause alarm, harassment or distress thereby'. Section 31 extends it, making a further offence if the behaviour or speech are:

racially aggravated causing fear or provocation of violence
racially aggravated intentional harassment alarm or distress
racially aggravated causing harassment, alarm or distress

So, I don't get where the 'blah blah, Daily Mail' responses are coming from, the law is clear. Throw in some 'mens rea', and you end up with people who know that words are likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress if used in public have intent in the eyes of the law.

A bit more information on the specifics of the law about racially aggravated crimes can be found here

Anyway, all of this is kinda missing my original point. Why should racism be treated differently to the same behaviour towards any other group in society, be it someone with an illness, or people of a different gender etc...?

EDIT: On the bit about my personal experience of the law, the arresting officers made the mistake of only paying attention to the alarm, harassment or distress part of the law, and didn't first look to see if we were being threatening, abusive or insulting. We weren't, so the arrests were wrong. If we had been, even if no-one had complained, we were on a high street and could have been arrested and charged with Section 5 offences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

Don't see how. I've presented a law, been giving training on the subject, and have experience of that law. As yet all I've had in response is 'that's rubbish' and 'reading too much Daily Mail'.

---

I was more talking about you in general, rather than this thread. You listen to nobody and constantly think you are correct in quite literally everything. Sort of like a forum know it all. That's what made me chuckle, the fact you tell someone he doesn't listen when you prove time and time again that you care about nobodies opinions except yourself. And that, I find offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hightower

I was more talking about you in general, rather than this thread. You listen to nobody and constantly think you are correct in quite literally everything. Sort of like a forum know it all. That's what made me chuckle, the fact you tell someone he doesn't listen when you prove time and time again that you care about nobodies opinions except yourself. And that, I find offensive.

---

You're welcome to your opinion, but making comments like this are off topic and basically 'forum stalking'... I present evidence, and await counter evidence. If people don't provide counter evidence, and simply rely on arguments based on 'nah! that can't be true' then to me, that is a poor way of discussing something. The same thing happened in a meeting I was in on Friday - someone stated that Google Apps was not legal for schools to use as an email hosting platform for schools in the EU, due to EU data protection laws. Providing him with evidence to the contrary, pointing out that Google are a SafeHarbor signatory and the ICO has determined that this is fine (as has the European Commission) resulted in 'no, that's not right'.

So, I'll continue with my same way of presenting my arguments, and hope people who respond actually provide counter evidence.

I am 100% willing to listen, I don't hold grudges, and I don't forum stalk. So, I don't see it as a big problem to continue doing what I do.

This thread is going round and round in circles.