In the news

Posted on
Page
of 3,693
First Prev
/ 3,693
Last Next
  • So crime is only serious when you kill someone?

    Pretend there is a witty retort here. My brain is full and I can't think of one.

  • And Gods might actually be real. Agnosticism or GTFO.

    This is true as far as it goes, but stating it that way is misleading, IMO.

    Evidence based scepticism tells us that any belief for which there is no supporting evidence (a faith, if you like) is no more likely to be true than any other non-supported notion.

    So, yes Gods might actually be real - with the same degree of likelihood as inside out planets made of peanut butter, a global hypercolour swan and a UK garage track that does not make me want to stuff my ears up with cheese.

  • I believe in global hypercolour swans.

  • Good on you. Keep the faith.

  • inside out planets made of peanut butter

    I would holiday there.

  • You've got to hand it to the Sun, that is a great headline.
    No wonder they pay the most.

  • Would have had that prepped for ages. Also "bad day for red tops" in the counter factual result.

  • “The ASA has withdrawn its formal ruling against a Cycling Scotland ad pending the outcome of an Independent Review. That followed a request from Cycling Scotland, in which it argued that the ASA’s criticism of the positioning of the cyclist was incorrect. The decision to withdraw was made by the ASA Chief Executive in light of a potential flaw in our ruling. Once the Independent Review process is complete we will publish our decision on our website.”

    http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cyclists-don-t-have-to-wear-helmets-or-ride-in-gutter-asa-rules/016556

  • I'd argue that mens rea is intent, not motivation, and the two are separate - e.g. the intent to burgle, not one's reason's for having that intent.

    But, given that intent is a subjectively experienced phenomenon, evidence of motivation is often adduced as evidence from which intent can be inferred. So the line is pretty blurry.

    Bu yes I wasn't clear. I mean it doesn't become a whole new and more harshly punished offence because of that mens rea.

    It's been a long time since I studied law, but I seem to remember gradations between negligence, recklessness and deliberate intent for some offences. Burglary requires the intent to steal, damage, or hurt - otherwise it's just trespass. Possessing drugs with the intent to distribute is more serious that mere possession.

    The only other offence I know of where it arguably does is when manslaughter becomes murder because you have to prove intent. That's intent rather than motivation though. IANAL though.

    So if you punch someone a man in street then it's assault or ABH or whatever - the charge will reflect the severity of the act but not my motivation for committing it, except in one case.

    If I jerk my elbow sharply upwards and backwards, hitting the nose of someone stood behind me, I am guilty of battery if I intended it or was reckless to the risk thereof. If it was an involuntary reaction to being bitten by a wasp, I most likely am not.

    If you punch a person in the street because he is wearing a green suit, you don't like his hair, because she is a woman, because he is gay or because he is disabled then it is still assault and sentencing will reflect the severity of the assault.

    If, however, the victim is of the opinion that you did it because you didn't like their race or their religion then you will be prosecuted for a distinct and more serious charge of racially aggravated assault. This is the only instance I know of where the opinion of the victim as to the perpetrator's motives is even taken into account, never mind enshrined in law, and the only case where it results in a different charge being brought.

    The actual two mens rea limbs for a hate crime are a) demonstrating hostility to the victim based on their membership of a race or religion around the time of the criminal act, or b) being motivated by hostility.

    B) is basically motivation. That's fairly clear. Prove they did it because they meant to be hostile, and it's a hate crime.

    A) is specifically defined by the Law Commission as being objective, and completely independent of the victim's perception. It is a question of fact for the court.

    Here's the Law Commission's paper on hate crime laws from May
    http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc348_hate_crime.pdf

    There are a quite a few distinct racially-aggravated offences that have been added to the statute books, which result in a person's religious delusions being enshrined in law as more special, fragile and worthy of legal protection than someone's sexuality, dis/ability, or (leaving aside the race aspect of the statutes) physical appearance. And quite frankly they shouldn't be.

    I do agree with you that if we're going to have the concept of hate crime, it shouldn't be limited to race or religion.

    Edit to add - that said, hostility based on gender, orientation, disability etc is taken into account in sentencing for any crime.

  • Quite. A sense of proportion would be nice.

    They threw a bit of bacon into a building. An offence requiring no punishment harsher than a fine for littering.

    Fair enough they did it specifically to cause offence, but offence against people who believe in gods should not be considered worse than offence against people who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and get upset by someone mowing the lawn.

    What these two people did has the potential to stir up violence and hatred between large groups of people. This is partly the reason racially and religiously motivated attacks are deemed more serious. Look at the causes of most of our wars. Race and religion. Anyone purposefully stirring this shit up deserves everything they get.

  • Unfortunately religion **is **institutionally an aspect of the British legal and political system.

    Well protecting the right and ability for individuals and communities to engage in cultural practices like religion is a noble concept.

    Invasion of a private place and distruption very sensitive ritual practice which is of high importance to a group of people is definitely worthy of being considered a crime. Just like getting your willy out in front of a primary school, intentionally seeking to disgust, offend etc is a malicious act - a type of non physical violence and cultural intolerance akin to racism.

    The Bacon couple and pussy riot should definitely be considered as punishable, but much less of course. Something like a couple weeks of community service would do it.

    I

  • Boom?

  • ^^^ I cant get my head around those pics

  • your a cave worth visiting.

  • Waterloo Station is on fire being evacuated

  • Hope it isn't!!!

  • FFFFFFuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu i hope this is a hoax

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10927599/Bristol-Crocodile-spotted-in-the-River-Avon.html

    Who is this mysterious "Crocodile Joe"?

  • Quickly - someone knock up a potato chop of TS as Crocodile Dundee.

  • "That's not a meme... THIS is a meme!"

  • People talk about the temperature, but is there enough food for that alligator? I imagine a 6ft creature would need a lot of meat/fish.

  • our rivers aren't that polluted that there aren't fish
    i guess they just do what crocs in africa do and grab wildebeest and zebra as they cross during the great migrat.... oh

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

In the news

Posted by Avatar for Platini @Platini

Actions