In the news

We can't laugh from over here, given that the new Labour government has decided to ease pressure on the prison and legal systems by... doubling the length of sentences magistrates can hand out. An idea so bad that even Dominic Raab had to bail on it.

words are not violence

What a bizarre opinion.

Violence can be verbal according to the World Health Organisation, whose definition of violence includes threats of physical harm. Or according to American Psychiatrist Association. Or the European Psychiatric Association….

But what about "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me"? Eh?

Contrary to popular grade school wisdom, words can and do cause lasting harm to vulnerable people. Increasing personal resilience is key but the focus should be on stopping the abuse, not solely on growing thicker skin.

Bit of time at HRH AirBnB might make those kids rethink their ways and become nicer people

Take her phone away. That’s going to destroy most people.

Of course I agree with that, and haven’t suggested anywhere that it’s acceptable.

I wasn’t aware of the WHO’s definition and I’m sure many others weren’t either, so it’s hardly bizarre. It’s fairly obvious I was talking about the difference between verbal forms and physical forms in relation to incarceration, but thanks for the correction in terminology.

31months at HRH AirBnB might make her rethink her ways and become a nicer person.

Gee, that's optimistic. So Tory governments over the last while haven't sold the prisons to big American companies who scrimp on everything except executive remuneration and lobby for tougher sentencing, and instead have gone for some sort of Scandinavian model, where 'rehabilitation' doesn't obviously deserve scare quotes?

Having a think about etymology often helps.

The root of violence is something like violate - seems like words can be violence, but it's a fairly high bar. Some folks seem to have totally run with the 'words as violence' concept, most notably the mob who insist criticism of Zionism is anti-Semitic... 🫣

A chap I know got a criminal conviction for calling a policeman a 'batty boy'. The openly gay officer said this distressed him.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/jamaica1104/2.htm#:~:text=Many%20Jamaicans%20speak%20%E2%80%9Cpatois%E2%80%9D%20or,the%20act%20that%20defines%20them.

it's a fairly high bar

Indeed, because, unlike sticks and stones, wielding words aggressively depends on context to be considered violent, but denying the possibility outright is simply wrong.

Violentia is the root you’re thinking of, meaning the use of force to cause harm or injury. Words may not have mass but they are plenty capable of causing injury, including medically diagnosable injury. But I’m labouring the point…

Some folks seem to have totally run with the 'words as violence' concept

Defo. See also the mythical ‘(excessively) woke’ crowd who take offence to everything and anything. Fortunately they’re not as numerous and nowhere near as powerful or impactful as their scapegoating political critics make them out to be, but they do exist and are thoroughly unpleasant.

The openly gay officer was probably slightly aggravated by it but knew the threshold for it being a crime was distress. Given that the phrase is a homophobic slur, it’s hard to feel sympathy for the convicted.

Thank you, I didn't realise anyone might be unfamiliar with it.

The officer also tried for 'with intent'. But I can't remember what the magistrate said about that bit. On the one hand it's great that a gay policeman can be open and that his colleagues support him when he wants to go to court to defend his right not to have homophobic slurs thrown at him. On the other hand the officer was guilty of wrongful arrest, assault, sexual assault and perjury. (The homophobic slur was said after the sexual assault.)

Well that took an unexpected turn

Well that was an unexpected twist. Are slurs acceptable depending on context? 🤔

Glad the bad cop lost his donuts. (I misread, thought the cop was found guilty too)

guilty of

but prosecuted for?

Violentia

Yeah, figured it was possibly a Latin word I'd never come across. Ta.

But I guess you don't necessarily need to consider ancient words so much as the cloud of connotations surrounding related modern terms; the Latin root did, uh, violence to the point we were both making ;)

Oops, I should have put 'IMO' before 'guilty'. The officer was never accused of those things. The barrister and defendant wanted to play everything down and not magnify the case by attacking the officer with stuff which would have been impossible to prove. It could have become a jury trial with lots of media attention. The barrister was outstanding and the magistrate was the type who is realistic about police evidence. He said the defendant was clearly guilty but unfortunate because he was of good character and there was no good reason for him to have been taken into police custody. Which was tantamount to saying that all the officers lied about the circumstances of the arrest. The sentence was Bound Over for a year, i.e. stay out of trouble and your conviction is erased.

So Aussie northern territories has reduced the legal age of responsibility from 12 to 10 not 14 like the rest of the world.

Edit - BBC news article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqz8gyp500o

Oh yeah, who needs to give a shit about scientific evidence pertaining to culpability of minors, or just plain decency, when there's racism to be done.

On the one hand it's great that a gay policeman can be open and that his colleagues support him

When my brother joined the police in rural NI 20-odd years back, he was among a number of openly gay cops in the station. An enlightened lack of homophobia aside, however, they (including him) were uniformly racist, violent and sociopathic, and very boastful about these attributes.

I thought the legal age of criminal responsibility in England was 10 years old?

Shows how much I know. (Not meant in a sarcastic way) Though it was 14 but you are right 10 in England and Wales at a guess but Scotland is 12