Newspaper of the year

[For Us All]

Complete and utter horse ****. And, yet again, just cut and pasted from another site (one that is vehemently against anti hate-speech legislation, natch).

 

Can't you at least credit the posts you nick from elsewhere, or are you hoping that we believe you have the wherewithal to formulate your own arguments?

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/its-time-to-shoot-down-the-post-brexit-hate-crime-hysteria/18874#.WN1XcPnyuUk

 

Ok,that's a fair cop but facts are facts and although there are many genuine hate crimes,there are also some which are reported anonymously and without evidence.It doesn't help,just the same as some newspaper headlines don't.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/the-real-hate-crime-scandal/

[Bea Smith]

:laugh::laugh:

 

Where have I censored you? Try quoting me again, but actually read the posts you are quoting this time.

 

What are you talking about Russia Today for? You don't see any posts from me because I've never posted about it. Quite how you can claim I've contradicted myself and then even admit that you've never seen me post about it is beyond me?

 

Regarding Child Porn/Terrorist Manuals etc etc, I shouldn't even have to answer this, it's such a poor point. We're talking about lawful newspapers in this thread, and to be more specific; the nations favourite newspaper.

 

Wow, page 10 of the thread and it's the first time anyone has posted an actual example of the daily mail 'spreading hate' and you only had to go back as far as the 1930s.

 

And crime stats are complete and utter rubbish most of the time. As someone has quite rightfully pointed out, the definition of hate crime has been blown up and as someone else has said those numbers are made up of people reporting crimes, not of evidenced crimes with secured convictions. Maybe the Jo Cox killer was influenced by islam extremists killing hundreds of people across europe over the past few months? I don't think the daily mail is responsible for that.

 

You say try quoting you again, but you quote only the .... line of MY post.

I never said you had attacked Russia Today, just the rabble you support - but maybe you could confirm that you support Russia Today and Al Jazeera having full powers to report and broadcast. If you do, fine.

Ive no idea what the contradicting thing means.

Just because I quoted something from the 1930s - that was to show how long the Mail had been doing it. They preached hate throughout from then, consistently every decade. Examples are easy to find, Im not wasting time on you linking to them.

I showed 2 friends who work in the police forceyour post, who laughed at your comment that crime statistics are unreliable. You cant and wont back it up and just saying that doesn't make it true - pathetic was the word one used about your remark.

'Someone else has said' - oh please, that is sooooo lame. The police are doing a better job at tackiling increasing hate crime, but the case of the 4 young men murdered at Barking shows there is much to be done with some forces. Durham are a great example of a progressive, exemplary force.

Your disgusting remark connecting Jo Cox's murder to Islamic terrorism is a slur on the memory of a wonderful lady who does not deserve such hate-filled filth - and proves everything people say about Mail readers like you is absolutely true.

 

ps You don't get any extra marks for the 4 laughing icons. Bookworm's snot on toast remark was far better. I bet you are a real scream of a laugh in the person, but hope I never have to find out.

[Regal Beagle]

You say try quoting you again, but you quote only the .... line of MY post.

I never said you had attacked Russia Today, just the rabble you support - but maybe you could confirm that you support Russia Today and Al Jazeera having full powers to report and broadcast. If you do, fine.

Ive no idea what the contradicting thing means.

Just because I quoted something from the 1930s - that was to show how long the Mail had been doing it. They preached hate throughout from then, consistently every decade. Examples are easy to find, Im not wasting time on you linking to them.

I showed 2 friends who work in the police forceyour post, who laughed at your comment that crime statistics are unreliable. You cant and wont back it up and just saying that doesn't make it true - pathetic was the word one used about your remark.

'Someone else has said' - oh please, that is sooooo lame. The police are doing a better job at tackiling increasing hate crime, but the case of the 4 young men murdered at Barking shows there is much to be done with some forces. Durham are a great example of a progressive, exemplary force.

Your disgusting remark connecting Jo Cox's murder to Islamic terrorism is a slur on the memory of a wonderful lady who does not deserve such hate-filled filth - and proves everything people say about Mail readers like you is absolutely true.

 

ps You don't get any extra marks for the 4 laughing icons. Bookworm's snot on toast remark was far better. I bet you are a real scream of a laugh in the person, but hope I never have to find out.

I can't even comprehend how you come up with this stuff.

 

I wasn't the one who bought Jo Cox up, and it certainly wasn't me that tried to imply that her murder was the result of the Daily Mail 'spreading hate' or the brexit vote:

Perhaps you think that the creature that killed Jo Cox just before Brexit referendum wasn't influenced by anything either

Yet another example of the loony left, outraged by (at worst) a mirror image of their own post.

 

'Someone else has said' IN THIS THREAD. This wasn't a source, I just couldn't remember the username of the person who posted it.

 

Of course the Police would laugh at my comment. They're the reason that the stats are unreliable. How come according to the Police, crime has consistantly fallen over the past 25 or so years? When according to the independent crime survey, it has not? How come it's fallen despite police stations closing everywhere, and there being significantly less police on the streets?

 

I'll spell it out even clearer for you....The stats you refer to when you say that hate crime has increased since we voted for freedom, are stats of REPORTED 'crimes'. They are not convictions, they are alleged crimes. For all anyone knows it could you be people like you ringing the police to report the 'hate' crime of questioning the reliability of crime statistics.

[Bea Smith]

I can't even comprehend how you come up with this stuff.

 

blah blah regurgitae etc...

 

Yet another example of the loony left, outraged by (at worst) a mirror image of their own post.

 

 

I'll spell it out even clearer for you....The stats you refer to when you say that hate crime has increased since we voted for freedom, are stats of REPORTED 'crimes'. They are not convictions, they are alleged crimes. For all anyone knows it could you be people like you ringing the police to report the 'hate' crime of questioning the reliability of crime statistics.

 

What a repulsive, objectionable and downright incorrect post. Now look carefully and please read and learn -

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/conviction_rate_for_hate_crime_at_all-time_high/

 

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/4802619.Rise_in_hate_crime_convictions/

 

That article says convictions for hate crimes have risen TEN FOLD in the last few years. Yet you still argue that your anecdotal feelings with no links, no evidence, no figures can't be wrong.

 

 

The next 2 links cover huge rises in CONVICTIONS (not reported as you KEPT saying) in disability and gay hate crime, yet you wont accept it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disability-hate-crime-convictions-surge-by-40-per-cent-a7232576.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8004548.stm

 

That's CONVICTIONS - not reported cases, as you said.

 

But downright proof will still see you arguing. I won't call you a liar, as you no doubt believe yourself to be right, but its also an indicator of your personality that you believe the entire police force will issue false figures in every county.

 

The links are wide and many though, from all areas, and I could find 100 more. A little bit more credible than your 'someone said that...'

 

What confuses me is your motive for denying this, my thoughts would be that only a mean, sadistic person who wanted to keep hate crime going would do so, and surely that is not you ?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I thought it was the student council, so both. The ruling student body. The student ruling body. I don't actually get the difference. They're an elected body that is there to make decisions on behalf of the students, or at least that's what I thought they were. Am I wrong?

 

If it were the student body then all students would have had the chance to vote on the matter. If it's the ruling council then only the council members had the opportunity to vote. I accept this is the mechanism they have chosen but it's wrong to suggest that the student body decided this.

 

Many do 'ban'/ opt to not stock books.Good luck finding (for example) David Irving books in many libraries. I worked in a record shop and we wouldn't buy in records by people like Skrewdriver (far right punk bands). I completely support the many student unions that refused to stock porn or Nuts, Zoo, FHM etc. I've used the example of the NF paper before; I presume you think shops should stock that so long as it's legal?

 

If it's legal yes they should make it available..let their customers decide not to buy it's filth.

 

not saying that they shouldn't but am completely behind any shopkeeper or student/ ruling body that doesn't want to.

 

I know that..I say it's for their customers to decide

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Just out of interest, how many people on here only buy newspapers which reflect their own views?

 

Weekdays I get the Mail; Sun, Mirror and Metro. Weekends it's the Mail, Times, Mirror, People and Sidmouth Herald

 

I would not say any of them reflect my views...on any given day I agree with some of the things they say, on the same day I disagree with some of the things they say.

[Regal Beagle]

What a repulsive, objectionable and downright incorrect post. Now look carefully and please read and learn -

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/conviction_rate_for_hate_crime_at_all-time_high/

 

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/4802619.Rise_in_hate_crime_convictions/

 

That article says convictions for hate crimes have risen TEN FOLD in the last few years. Yet you still argue that your anecdotal feelings with no links, no evidence, no figures can't be wrong.

 

 

The next 2 links cover huge rises in CONVICTIONS (not reported as you KEPT saying) in disability and gay hate crime, yet you wont accept it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disability-hate-crime-convictions-surge-by-40-per-cent-a7232576.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8004548.stm

 

That's CONVICTIONS - not reported cases, as you said.

 

But downright proof will still see you arguing. I won't call you a liar, as you no doubt believe yourself to be right, but its also an indicator of your personality that you believe the entire police force will issue false figures in every county.

 

The links are wide and many though, from all areas, and I could find 100 more. A little bit more credible than your 'someone said that...'

 

What confuses me is your motive for denying this, my thoughts would be that only a mean, sadistic person who wanted to keep hate crime going would do so, and surely that is not you ?

Sorry for being so repulsive again. Is this one worse than me hoping that Trump can provide jobs for the poorest Americans? Or is it worse than me daring to type Jo Cox's name despite the fact that it was you that did it first? I can't keep up with it.

 

Nice try moving the goal posts. We were discussing the supposed rise in hate crime as a result of Brexit. What you've just posted proves that Brexit has nothing to do with it.

 

Furthermore, seen as the Daily Mail has been encouraging racial attacks for over 87 years according to yourself, it's a surprise hate crime has risen only over the past few years?

 

It almost makes it seem to me like something has changed in the last few years, like the definition of hate crime has been widened and/or the police have started applying it differently. Which is the point I made several pages ago.

[Regal Beagle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398

 

How long until 'Manspreading' is a hate crime?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888

 

Am I committing a hate crime by not believing that hate crime is truly rising? Probably.

[TheSage]

Going back to Jacko's question, I rather like the i as well because it's cheap and contains a bit more serious news than the other red tops.

 

However, I often buy different newspapers on different days of the week or depending on what I'm looking for.

 

As I say, I quite like the TV supplement and the sports pages in the Mail at weekends. The sports pages in the broadsheets are good on Sundays, as are the travel and motoring supplements. And all three of them contain a lot of in-depth detailed news items if that's what you want.

 

I always read the papers back to front, which gives you my priorities.

[Bea Smith]

Sorry for being so repulsive again. Is this one worse than me hoping that Trump can provide jobs for the poorest Americans? Or is it worse than me daring to type Jo Cox's name despite the fact that it was you that did it first? I can't keep up with it.

 

Nice try moving the goal posts. We were discussing the supposed rise in hate crime as a result of Brexit. What you've just posted proves that Brexit has nothing to do with it.

 

No we were not, we were discussing your statement that the hate crime REPORTED has risen but not convictions. Ive proved that untrue, and can also prove easily that hate crime has risen after Brexit. Who is moving goalposts ?

 

Furthermore, seen as the Daily Mail has been encouraging racial attacks for over 87 years according to yourself, it's a surprise hate crime has risen only over the past few years?

 

Very disrespectful to the victims of the holocast, as even you will know that the greatest hate crimes were committed by the Mail-supported Nazis in the 1930's. And do us the favour of not adding the snidey 'according to yourself' as if I was lying - it is well documented and I cound find a link that the Mail supported Hitler and the Nazis mid-1930s.

 

It almost makes it seem to me like something has changed in the last few years, like the definition of hate crime has been widened and/or the police have started applying it differently. Which is the point I made several pages ago

 

Thankfully, things have changed in the last few years, so you finally got one right. What has changed is that thugs cant throw bananas and make monkey noises at black footballers, gays are not breaking the law just for being gay, Jimmy Savile and his friends cannot get away with what they did, TV programmes cant say things like 'Oh look an Irish P*ki' (Love Thy Neighbour/Alf Garnett programmes 1970s) - and much more.

 

The police have changed and training courses given by them highlight diversity training, equal and understanding treatment of ethnic minorities and different cultures, and acceptance of gays, understanding of women raped and much more.

 

I expect you'd like it to be as it was in 1960 and its a pity you weren't born around 1920 or even before that, you'd have loved it and we wouldn't have to endure your poison-filled posts..

 

 

xxxxxxxxx sweet dreams

[jimbo57]

xxxxxxxxx sweet dreams

 

'a hate crime is any intention which the victim or anyone else thinks is based on someones predjudice towards them'

 

note words 'thinks'' also note 'anyone else' and just try to use some common sense instead of your bigoted, red fascist arguement that is plainly bonkers if you still can not see why reported cased of hate crime have risen - to spell it out to you -THE GOALS POSTS HAVE MOVED

[Bea Smith]

'a hate crime is any intention which the victim or anyone else thinks is based on someones predjudice towards them'

 

note words 'thinks'' also note 'anyone else' and just try to use some common sense instead of your bigoted, red fascist arguement that is plainly bonkers if you still can not see why reported cased of hate crime have risen - to spell it out to you -THE GOALS POSTS HAVE MOVED

 

Nothing new to add then- just mr angry thinking because you say it is right makes it so - ok, you have the right to your opinion, me mine, but I have provided a number of links that give proof.

 

It doesn't make your argument more correct by the 'red fascist' (new one, that - not very convincing) and all the rest.

 

 

Is that is a quote at the start, if so, are we allowed o know which orifice it came from, or perhaps it is all your very own work.

 

AND PUTTING THE LAST SENTENCE IN CAPS ADDS NOTHING.

[Houston Valiant]

'a hate crime is any intention which the victim or anyone else thinks is based on someones predjudice towards them'

 

note words 'thinks'' also note 'anyone else' and just try to use some common sense instead of your bigoted, red fascist arguement that is plainly bonkers if you still can not see why reported cased of hate crime have risen - to spell it out to you -THE GOALS POSTS HAVE MOVED

 

Don't get your blood pressure raised by Bea.

It's a waste of time .

[JOHNNYAITCH]

'a hate crime is any intention which the victim or anyone else thinks is based on someones predjudice towards them[/qUOTE]

 

the cps uses a very similar definition.

 

Indeed there was a surge immediately after the referendum but rates have settled back to pre referendum levels..one is too many but at least the incidence has dropped back.

 

We do have to be careful here as it does seem something that is not motivated by prejudice could be recorded as a hate crime if the person on the receiving end believes it was motivated by prejudice. Being g on the receiving end of abuse etc is obviously potentially very damaging but just cos someone believes it to be motivated by prejudice does not mean that it was...I might think someone on here who belongs to a minority is a **** cos of their behaviour not cos of any other more sinister reason but if they think its because of something else that could wrongly be recorded as a hate crime.

[Regal Beagle]

xxxxxxxxx sweet dreams

 

Forget black footballers.

 

Forget Gay rights.

 

Forget child absue victims.

 

There's goth's being call names out there and they're getting even sadder than usual because of it.

 

So here's a list of people I've been disgustingly offensive towards according to bea smith:

-America's poorest - 45 million people. (By hoping that they get jobs created for them)

-Jo Cox (By replying to you when you tried to pin her murder on the daily mail/brexit)

-Holocaust victims - 6 million people (Somehow, by not mentioning the holocaust in a discussion about hate crime, which you are trying to pin on the daily mail it seems)

 

Total so far: 50,000,001

I might have forgotten about a couple of hundred million or so.

 

I'm sure you'll point them out when you've trumped them up.

 

 

And I wouldn't like it to be the 1920s.

 

I'd like it to be 2019 where we will be able to kick foreign criminals out of the country and we are allowed to assist developing nations by trading with them.