The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15039915
@Pants-of-dog
Around 20% of all cases are regarding hate speech, which includes offensive language or causing alarm or distress through abusive or offensive language.
All the information is in this thread. You just ignored them.

In the UK it's around 20% (varies between years), Canada it's a third, Germany is the only one there is no clear percentage provided of the overall hate crimes as the numbers vary widely, so we count on active reports there rather than percentage.
#15039919
@Pants-of-dog
It's from the hate crime stats for England and Wales.
The number has been in my head since yesterday since we've repeated the same empty discussion several times now.
Of the arrests (for hate speech) , it's around 20% that was due to offensive or abusive language.


EDIT:
Will get the stats in a couple of minutes.
Last edited by anasawad on 06 Oct 2019 21:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15039921
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
It's from the hate crime stats for England and Wales.
The number has been in my head since yesterday since we've repeated the same empty discussion several times now.
Of the arrests (for hate speech) , it's around 20% that was due to offensive or abusive language.


@anasawad

Post a link.

Quote the relevant text.

Let me know when you have done so, thanks.
#15039928
@Pants-of-dog
Here you go, this is the one I remember the number from:
23% actually. Apparently it's higher, but I got the number for just race and religion.
Turns out I'm understating it. :lol:

Image
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ho ... tats-show/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sb2018.pdf

The majority of hate crimes by offence type were for public order
offences – 56% of all hate crimes. This compares with public order
offences accounting for 8% of overall recorded crime.

The statistics
show the proportion of hate crimes that were online was 2% in
2017/18. By strand, the proportion of online hate crimes as a proportion of all hate crimes ranged from 2% for racist online hate crime to 6% for transgender crime in 2017/18.

The data on online hate crime by type of offence shows that the
majority of online hate crimes involve violence against the person (80%)
which mainly involves the sending of malicious communications.18
Offences related to violence against the person accounted for 33% of
overall hate crime in comparison where the majority of overall hate
crimes were related to public order offences (56%).



This was literally in the first 2 pages of the argument.


Also, just in case, this is a good example of what they mean by grossly offensive messages and this is a public order offense.
A teenager who posted rap lyrics which included racist language on Instagram has been found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921




On why we've been seeing a rise in cases and arrests:
127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matterthat is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
#15039938
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
Here you go, this is the one I remember the number from:
23% actually. Apparently it's higher, but I got the number for just race and religion.
Turns out I'm understating it. :lol:

Image
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ho ... tats-show/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sb2018.pdf


@anasawad

What is this a percentage of?

And how does this help us know how many were charged with hate speech crimes and arrested?

This was literally in the first 2 pages of the argument.


Whose argument? Where?

Also, just in case, this is a good example of what they mean by grossly offensive messages and this is a public order offense.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921


@anasawad

Anecdotal evidence is hood for appealing to emotions, but is not very useful in debate.

On why we've been seeing a rise in cases and arrests:


@anasawad

Because of a law that was written decades ago?
#15039939
@Pants-of-dog
What is this a percentage of?

And how does this help us know how many were charged with hate speech crimes and arrested?

This is the percentage of hate crime cases that are speech crimes in public order section that ended in convictions, meaning in all these cases the person not only was arrested, but was trialled, convicted, and punished.

Whose argument? Where?

This same report was posted in the first few posts of our argument.

Anecdotal evidence is hood for appealing to emotions, but is not very useful in debate

This isn't anecdotal evidence.
This is an example of a public disorder offense under the communication act.

Because of a law that was written decades ago?

The law was first established in 2003, and due to the wide scope (i.e. vagueness and subjectivity of the phrasing) of the law, its definition of "grossly offensive" language and its criminalization is determined by the judges and juries in each case.
If we looked at the numbers, there as just as many arrests and convictions in the past 5 years compared to the 10 years prior since the law went into practice.
#15039941
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

This is the percentage of hate crime cases that are speech crimes in public order section that ended in convictions, meaning in all these cases the person not only was arrested, but was trialled, convicted, and punished.


@anasawad
I highly doubt this. The word “convictions” would be in the title.

Now, which of the links was associated with this graph? I will find it and see what it actually means,

This same report was posted in the first few posts of our argument.


@anasawad
No, it was not.

This isn't anecdotal evidence.
This is an example of a public disorder offense under the communication act.


If it is a single story, it is anecdotal.

The law was first established in 2003, and due to the wide scope (i.e. vagueness and subjectivity of the phrasing) of the law, its definition of "grossly offensive" language and its criminalization is determined by the judges and juries in each case.
If we looked at the numbers, there as just as many arrests and convictions in the past 5 years compared to the 10 years prior since the law went into practice.


@anasawad

How do you know it happened in 2003?
#15039948
@Pants-of-dog
I highly doubt this. The word “convictions” would be in the title.

Now, which of the links was associated with this graph? I will find it and see what it actually means,

It's the same report.
The percentages shows cases that resulted in charges or summons, charges means the person is arrested since official charges have been filed, and summons means the person is summoned to a court which means that crime was officially put into his\her record and evidence was established with what's remaining is the determination of the punishment.
Now, I will admit the language is a bit unclear in the report, even though it is a state report; But either way, since they count out cases that did not end in charges or trials, and they rule out cases that are either in progress, inconclusive, withdrawn, or dismissed, then I assume the remaining are the ones determined (conviction) since there is no other option remaining.

The same type of vagueness is all over the place, even the word hate speech or offense are rarely mentioned in the reports.
Noting that the percentage of public disorder hate crimes is 56%, with the graph showing only religious or racial hate crime.

No, it was not.

It was. Page seven. But anyways.

If it is a single story, it is anecdotal.

All cases within that stat are single stories if one of them were given as examples.
That, however, does not mean it is anecdotal since it is given as an example of an actual case.
For it to be anecdotal, it must be based on a personal experience by someone, not an official case in a court of law that the media reported on.

How do you know it happened in 2003?

Because the relevant section is section 127, which was instated in 2003.
I doubt that the 1934 communication act would address electronic messages.

Also, the state in the UK released several new guidelines on dealing with online hate crimes in 2016 and began expanding efforts on that front, which is why the number of cases is increasing and I'm assuming why it caused a large backlash and controversy in the various online communities during the past couple of years.
Last edited by anasawad on 07 Oct 2019 00:16, edited 1 time in total.
#15039949
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

It's the same report.
The percentages shows cases that resulted in charges or summons, charges means the person is arrested since official charges have been filed, and summons means the person is summoned to a court which means that crime was officially put into his\her record and evidence was established with what's remaining is the determination of the punishment.
Now, I will admit the language is a bit unclear in the report, even though it is a state report; But either way, since they count out cases that did not end in charges or trials, and they rule out cases that are either in progress, inconclusive, withdrawn, or dismissed, then I assume the remaining are the ones determined (conviction) since there is no other option remaining.

Noting that the percentage of public disorder hate crimes is 56%, with the graph showing only religious or racial hate crime.


Since you never mentioned what report it is, it is pointless to tell me it is the same report and not provide a link like I asked.

Post the link.

It was. Page seven. But anyways.


Which post?

All cases within that stat are single stories if one of them were given as examples.
That, however, does not mean it is anecdotal since it is given as an example of an actual case.
For it to be anecdotal, it must be based on a personal experience by someone, not an official case in a court of law that the media reported on.


I see. You are debating the use of the word anecdotal. The point that it is just a single case brought up solely for its emotional appeal.

Because the relevant section is section 127, which was instated in 2003.
I doubt that the 1934 communication act would address electronic messages.


So, the law against offensive use of written communication is from 1934, and the only change since then is that it now includes online stuff.

So how does this cause a recent increase in crimes?
#15039952
@Pants-of-dog
Since you never mentioned what report it is, it is pointless to tell me it is the same report and not provide a link like I asked.

Post the link.


You do realize how dishonest you keep making yourself appear right?

Both links are to the same report, one in website and one in PDF.

I see. You are debating the use of the word anecdotal. The point that it is just a single case brought up solely for its emotional appeal.

I brought several examples, you're gonna call all of them anecdotal.
And if I brought a record of each and every one of those cases in the stats, I'm sure you'll call all of them the same.

Anecdotal means based on personal experience. This is not personal experience, this was an example to show what are public disorder crimes like from a report on the case, because I know if I didn't bring an example you'll try to argue that public disorder doesn't mean or include hate speech, as you always do.

So, the law against offensive use of written communication is from 1934, and the only change since then is that it now includes online stuff.

I already quoted the text of the new section.
The communication act 2003 is a pack of several new sections, some address online material and others general.
It's a new set of laws.
Section 127, the one which much these cases are happening under, is an entirely new law.


So how does this cause a recent increase in crimes?


I will start just re-quoting my own posts to save time:
The law was first established in 2003, and due to the wide scope (i.e. vagueness and subjectivity of the phrasing) of the law, its definition of "grossly offensive" language and its criminalization is determined by the judges and juries in each case.
#15039953
anasawad wrote:People have the right to hold and express whatever opinions they have, even if those were bad opinions, because the minute we start silencing people from expressing their opinions even if those opinions were not targetted at anyone nor inciting any violence of any sort, then not only the people, all of them, just lost their freedom of speech, freedom of beliefs, and freedom of affiliation, but also a precedent would be established that gives the state the power to silence and arrest people based on political speech, which means the minute one power-hungry politician or group reach power they can use it to crack down on their opposition.
That's how democracy ends and tyranny begins.
People still have the right to hold whatever opinion they have, however they have never had the express freedom to express opinions that can incite people to discrimination and violence.

Canadian law, is quite clear.

Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

UK Law
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

You have to actually prove these in court, so an arrest means very little, unless there is grounds for a conviction. Can you present conviction rates on hate speech and specifics?

In short, there has to actually be some harm done or problems caused in society by people using hate speech. It's not merely someone expressing an opinion, and being censored for it. It's not about limiting freedom of speech. There's always been limits where it can cause harm.

Your whole argument is based on a false premise, @anasawad, or simple fear-mongering about what could happen. This is the same as the people who said that homosexual marriage would lead to people marrying dogs and cats.

It didn't, of course.
#15040010
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog

You do realize how dishonest you keep making yourself appear right?

Both links are to the same report, one in website and one in PDF.


@anasawad
I am not certain that that is the case.

Anyway, your graph is not from the PDF. The same graph from the PDF (Figure 2.6) shows different percentages.

This graph does not show convictions. It shows the percentage of these sorts of crimes or offences that then proceed to charges being laid, or require a civil court.

The point is to show that hate crimes end up in court more often.

Since not all cases that appear before a judge are convictions, your claim was incorrect.

And it still does not answer my question about numbers.

I brought several examples, you're gonna call all of them anecdotal.
And if I brought a record of each and every one of those cases in the stats, I'm sure you'll call all of them the same.

Anecdotal means based on personal experience. This is not personal experience, this was an example to show what are public disorder crimes like from a report on the case, because I know if I didn't bring an example you'll try to argue that public disorder doesn't mean or include hate speech, as you always do.


I just want to look at stats, not discuss my feelings about a particular case.

I already quoted the text of the new section.
The communication act 2003 is a pack of several new sections, some address online material and others general.
It's a new set of laws.
Section 127, the one which much these cases are happening under, is an entirely new law.


@anasawad
I doubt this. Please present evidence as to when section 127 was written.

I will start just re-quoting my own posts to save time:


No. I want you to support your claim. Not just repeat it.
#15040067
@Pants-of-dog
@anasawad
I am not certain that that is the case.

Anyway, your graph is not from the PDF. The same graph from the PDF (Figure 2.6) shows different percentages.

This graph does not show convictions. It shows the percentage of these sorts of crimes or offences that then proceed to charges being laid, or require a civil court.

The point is to show that hate crimes end up in court more often.

Since not all cases that appear before a judge are convictions, your claim was incorrect.

And it still does not answer my question about numbers.

It's the same report, the PDF form is expanded and just uses different colors.


Anyhow, in order:
Communication act 2003:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents
Text of section 127 in the communication act of 2003:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
(5)An information or complaint relating to an offence under this section may be tried by a magistrates' court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland if it is laid or made—
(a)before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b)before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor which the prosecutor considers sufficient to justify proceedings.
(6)Summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be commenced in Scotland—
(a)before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b)before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor which the prosecutor considers sufficient to justify proceedings,and section 136(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (date when proceedings deemed to be commenced) applies for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section.
(7)A certificate of a prosecutor as to the date on which evidence described in subsection (5)(b) or (6)(b) came to his or her knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.]



From the report, going page by page:
Page 7:
In 2017/18, there were 94,098 hate crime offences recorded by the police in England and
Wales, an increase of 17% compared with the previous year.

This continues the upward trend in recent years with the number of hate crimes recorded by the
police having more than doubled since 2012/13 (from 42,255 to 94,098 offences; an increase of
123%).


Page 8:
Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to
be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’This
common definition was agreed in 2007 by the police
,

This means that offences with a xenophobic element (such as graffiti targeting certain nationalities)
can be recorded as race hate crimes by the police.


Page 12:
These increases are thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording by the police
following a review Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
(HMICFRS) in 2014 and the removal of the designation of police recorded crime as National
Statistics. It also thought that growing awareness of hate crime is likely to have led to improved
identification of such offences. Although these improvements are thought to be the main reasons for
the increases seen, there have been short-term increases in hate crime following certain events such
as the EU Referendum in June 2016 and the terrorist attacks in 2017.


Page 15:
Image
Our focus is on Public order crimes.

Page 18:
The chart I previously put, now in different colors:
Image

Page 19:
In total, 94 per cent of hate crime flagged offences recorded in 2017/18 had been assigned an
outcome at the time the data were extracted from the Data Hub.10 The remaining six per cent were still
under investigation.

thirteen per cent of hate crime flagged public order offences had been dealt with a charge or
summons compared with 10 per cent for non-hate crime flagged public order offences


Image

Page 20:
Image


Page 30:
Analysis of the online hate crime data by offence type shows that out of the four selected offence
groups, violence against the person (VATP) had the highest proportion (6%) of online hate crimes in
2017/18 (Figure A1). Looking at the data in more detail, malicious communications offences (a
subgroup of stalking and harassment offences) accounted for the majority (86%) of the VATP online hate crime offences. Criminal damage offences were least likely to have both an online and hate crime
element (<0.5%).

Considering that malicious communications, meaning communications targetted at a specific person, accounted for 86%, that leaves 14% of non-malicious offences, meaning hate speech.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sb2018.pdf

I just want to look at stats, not discuss my feelings about a particular case.

Examples of these online offences include the cases of Azhar Ahmed, Chelsea Russel, and Mark Meechan among many others.
Those cases are the ones that received public attention and reported in the media, they are significant because they show what type of "crimes" are we talking about when it comes to hate speech.
Examples from reports are not anecdotal, and the fact that they did happen in it self proves that there are arrests for hate speech that is not targetted at anyone, i.e. opinions.

This isn't about anyone's feelings, the fact these cases even exist on its own proves my point.


No. I want you to support your claim. Not just repeat it.

I already supported it multiple times, you just keep ignoring and running in circles, so I'll just continue to re-state it.

Since not all cases that appear before a judge are convictions, your claim was incorrect.

1- The fact that a charge is filed and the person is summoned to court means that the "crime" is already recorded on their records.
2- Considering that the UK has a very high conviction rate, it is fair to assume that of the 94% of these crimes, most have received a conviction.
from 2009 to 2017, the conviction ratio (the percentage of defendants convicted out of all those prosecuted) increased for all ethnic groups, from 79.8% in 2009 to 83.7% in 2017


Image
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.ser ... nd-figures



@Godstud
People still have the right to hold whatever opinion they have, however they have never had the express freedom to express opinions that can incite people to discrimination and violence.

Except that, as shown, is not true.
People, though a minority of cases at the moment, are indeed being arrested and convicted over stating opinions.
As bad as those opinions might be, they should still have the freedom to hold them.

Canadian law, is quite clear.

Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

UK Law
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

I haven't gone through Canadian law, so I'll do it tonight.
But for the UK law, the communication act of 2003 does criminalize offence and the police guidelines of 2007 expanded it even further.
In Germany, the Network enforcement act did the same.

You have to actually prove these in court, so an arrest means very little, unless there is grounds for a conviction.

You have to consider that the minute one is arrested and charges were filed, that goes into record, so just by doing that the state have caused significant damage to the person's life.

Can you present conviction rates on hate speech and specifics?

Exact numbers, no, I provided rough estimates.
94% of all public order offences were assigned outcome, with a conviction rate in the 90 percentiles.

In short, there has to actually be some harm done or problems caused in society by people using hate speech. It's not merely someone expressing an opinion, and being censored for it. It's not about limiting freedom of speech. There's always been limits where it can cause harm.

But you're missing the key problem ( Which I stated a couple of posts ago), the law doesn't say that and doesn't hold any specific definitions, it's vague and considerably large in scope. Simple police guidelines or court precedents define the interpretation due to this vagueness; As seen in the stats, the number of flagged offences are going up with changes in police guidelines.

Likewise, court precedents like the case of Mark Meechan who was arrested and fined for making Nazi jokes, Azhar Ahmed who was arrested for offensive political speech, and Chelsea Russel who was arrested and convicted for quoting a rap song with offensive words in it, all act to expand the scope of the law in enforcement.
The first (Mark Meechan) opened the door for comedians and artists to be arrested and convicted for jokes or offensive materials. (Which is why many famous Comedians and artists condemned the court decision)
The second, Azhar Ahmed, opened the door for political speech to be criminalized which means that the state can now crackdown on opposition parties. (Even if the state doesn't do it now, it now has the power to do so)
The third, Chelsea Russel, opens the door for censorship and criminalization of not only offensive opinions not targetted at anyone, but also for media material in general.

With many other cases of the likes that can be found with a simple search.

The current government not using that new power it was granted doesn't mean much in this argument because, either way, the state now has that power.
Again, enter the example of Trump's corruption here, it's a matter of when not if for someone to come in and abuse that power.

or simple fear-mongering about what could happen.

What could happen is a very important question to consider when making laws.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, as seen with the case of Trump.

As Murphy's law goes, Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
#15040071
@anasawad

Your writing is very unclear.

We will take this one step at a time.

Do you understand that the graph you showed previously was not about convictions, but instead showed a comparison of how many crimes go to court as opposed to how many hate crimes go to court?

Yes or no? It seems like you do understand that, as you seem to have conceded this is the case.

And also note that you have still not provided a number of arrests, or even charges, of hate speech.
#15040074
@Godstud
Authiritarianism is the problem, and authiritarian policies stack as they each opens the door for more.

Trump is only a symtpom of too much power in the hands of the state, with the policies being established under both republicans and democrats.

@Pants-of-dog
Your writing is very unclear.

It is very clear.

We will take this one step at a time.

We wont, that disingenuous method of narrative building you're using is getting tiring, the data is up there and it speaks for itself.


Do you understand that the graph you showed previously was not about convictions, but instead showed a comparison of how many crimes go to court as opposed to how many hate crimes go to court?

It isn't, the graph shows the percentage of the cases that were pursued by the police and resulted in charges and summons. (Both are hate crimes)
The comparison is between aggravated and non-aggravated crimes, and the remaining graphs and numbers shows the exact percentage of public order crimes, and what are those crimes.

And also note that you have still not provided a number of arrests, or even charges, of hate speech.

So you've elected to ignore all the data as you've continuously done over the past 8 pages and continued to repeat your strawman and red herrings.

The numbers are provided.
#15040083
@anasawad

I find it amusing that you say the graph does not say what i say it says, and then you agree that it is about charges and not convictions.

Now, how many people are actually arrested, charged, and convicted of hate speech each year?

Also, when did written hate speech become illegal in the UK?
#15040084
@Pants-of-dog
Charges means arrests, summons means trials.
Of the overall hate crimes, 94% have a determined outcome while 6% are still on-going.
Public order crimes, which makes up 56% of all hate crimes, has a conviction rate averaging in the 90%s percentile.
Of all public order crimes, roughly 5-14% are not malicious, meaning they are not harassment or stalking or targetted.

For the graph, in the hate crime stats, they differentiate between aggravated and non-aggravated hate crimes, all while noting very clearly in the report that the over all crimes (i.e both hate and non-hate crimes), hate crimes are distinguished and hold different stats.
The report is strictly addressing hate crimes.

The first link, which this PDF came from, has links for general crime stats, regular crime stats, and hate crime stats.

You finding it amusing and thinking you're right and that I somehow agreed with you clearly shows the not only you ignored the quoted parts of the report, but that you haven't even opened the report and read it.
Basically, you just confirmed my point that you are ignoring the evidence and just pushing a narrative.

And the current laws in question came about in 2003 with further guidelines in 2007 and slight modifications in 2013-2014.
This would be number 21 or 22 this has been mentioned in this thread.


EDIT:
Also noting, that first graph I only put there to show that it is the same report in both links.
Hint: it says so in the line right above it that this is the previous graph.
#15040106
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
Charges means arrests, summons means trials.
Of the overall hate crimes, 94% have a determined outcome while 6% are still on-going.
Public order crimes, which makes up 56% of all hate crimes, has a conviction rate averaging in the 90%s percentile.
Of all public order crimes, roughly 5-14% are not malicious, meaning they are not harassment or stalking or targetted.

For the graph, in the hate crime stats, they differentiate between aggravated and non-aggravated hate crimes, all while noting very clearly in the report that the over all crimes (i.e both hate and non-hate crimes), hate crimes are distinguished and hold different stats.
The report is strictly addressing hate crimes.

The first link, which this PDF came from, has links for general crime stats, regular crime stats, and hate crime stats.

You finding it amusing and thinking you're right and that I somehow agreed with you clearly shows the not only you ignored the quoted parts of the report, but that you haven't even opened the report and read it.
Basically, you just confirmed my point that you are ignoring the evidence and just pushing a narrative.

And the current laws in question came about in 2003 with further guidelines in 2007 and slight modifications in 2013-2014.
This would be number 21 or 22 this has been mentioned in this thread.


EDIT:
Also noting, that first graph I only put there to show that it is the same report in both links.
Hint: it says so in the line right above it that this is the previous graph.


I have already explained what the graph is about.

Now, do you have that number, or do you just have more percentages?

Finally, when did written hate speech become illegal in the Uk? Section 127 is about online speech. The answer is 1986, not 2003.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

How do you KNOW it is accurate? I have checked[…]

To be fair, Malaysia did not lay their SCS claim a[…]

Gore gets slammed over false global warming predi[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

It is interesting to see how the people here and […]