Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

After investigating this issue for a number of years, the Government has asked the Law Commission to look into broadening the number of 'protected characteristics' covered within hate crime legislation. These could include ageism, misogyny and alternative cultures such as Goths.

James Brokenshire, the Communities Secretary, announced an updated & revised action plan today to deal with hate crimes where vulnerability and/or hatred are involved.

Organisations representing various disadvantaged groups, such as Age UK, welcomed the move as there have been cases where older people have been dehumanised.

Mark Walters, a professor of criminal law & criminology, said "hate crimes increase fear, anxiety and shame", so this is important. He went on to say that Individual groups should not be targeted and it's important to let society know that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

This comes as hate crimes have risen by 17% nationally, with hate crimes against the disabled rising by two thirds in some areas and religious hate crimes rising by 40%, with more than half of them directed at Muslims. Muslims & Jewish people were the highest groups targeted. It is said that Brexit and terrorist attacks have contributed to this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45874265

[techguyone]

There's a very good reason why crime statistics keep getting worse, they keep adding extra classes to each offence now.

It would be nice if they could keep things the same for a while so we could compare like with like.

[deadite66]

S### like this gets added as hate crimes.

Conservative MP David Davies says he has been threatened with police action because he held meetings in parliament on transgender concerns.

https://talkradio.co.uk/news/david-d...ns-18101628380

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

These could include ageism, misogyny and alternative cultures such as Goths.

I love how Misandry is never included in examples like that

Originally Posted by Russ

I love how Misandry is never included in examples like that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45870948

Hostility to men and elderly people could become hate crimes

...Last month, it was announced that a review by the Law Commission would look at whether offences driven by misogyny - dislike, contempt or ingrained prejudice against women - should be treated as hate crimes.

And now it's emerged the same review will also consider the opposite - crimes motivated by misandry - hostility towards men..

...The Law Commission - an independent body that looks regularly at laws and whether they need to be updated - began its review of hate crime following a campaign by the Labour MP Stella Creasy.

She wanted misogyny to be recognised in the same way as racial or religious hatred because of the high levels of harassment that girls and women suffer.

As for why hostility against men is being included too, Home Office Minister Baroness Williams says the government always responds to what "the public and other organisations are telling us". And it appears at least some feel misandry is an issue.

She said the government wasn't telling the Law Commission to recommend that misandry be included, but was simply asking for its view on the matter.

"It may well be that particular strand is not necessary to take forward, but we are asking them to look at it," she added..

[Russ]

Coming in at a distant second

[nomadking]

1) They're only being asked to look into it(misandry).
2) The Government doesn't seem enthusiastic to create a law on it.
3) Little chance of people being prosecuted for it.
4) Little chance of any meaningful sentences as women seem all too often to avoid jail.


All too often in an argument, all sorts of "labels" get chucked around. Doesn't mean any bias in the original argument. Just as if no "labels" are used, doesn't mean there wasn't a bias in the reason for the argument.

[Onramp]

Thought crime will be next.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Onramp

Thought crime will be next.

The best thing to do for anyone worried about this is to always treat all others with respect, courtesy and kindness. That way it won't ever be possible to be accused of breaking any laws about this. I'm sure that you wouldn't want the right to be able to be unpleasent and discriminatory towards anybody, be they elderly, disabled, gay, black etc or otherwse!

I hope that misandry is included though as, if not, it's like saying that the legislation to prevent racial attacks should only apply to black/Asian people!

Originally Posted by Onramp

Thought crime will be next.

All because the poor snowflakes cant cope with real life.

[Onramp]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The best thing to do for anyone worried about this is to always treat all others with respect, courtesy and kindness.

Oh, totally. I'm just concerned that with more and more specific legislation, we're sliding feet first into a totalitarian country where everyone could be criminalized on request and nobody has the right to freedom of thought. It may be possible to use machine learning techniques to derive emotional state or internal thought processes by following someone's social media or series of facial expressions on CCTV. "We wouldn't want people to start having any negative thoughts now would we, since that can lead to mental health problems." (no politically centred or slightly-to-the-right of centre crimethink allowed, etc).

For example, imagine if someone began to question in their own mind whether or not the BBC should force everyone to wear a poppy. Oops. There's a van outside.

[OLD BOY]

The politicians are making a pig's ear out of this. What about those who are not 'protected'? Would it not be more appropriate to outlaw such behaviour against anyone?

[Onramp]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The politicians are making a pig's ear out of this. What about those who are not 'protected'? Would it not be more appropriate to outlaw such behaviour against anyone?

But that would be too reasonable. Nobody would get to feel special or included that way. Also, It is cheaper to be seen to be doing something and staying on social media than it is to be going outside and doing policing there.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Onramp

But that would be too reasonable. Nobody would get to feel special or included that way. Also, It is cheaper to be seen to be doing something and staying on social media than it is to be going outside and doing policing there.

Not only is it unfair to select particular groups of people who are to be 'protected', leaving the 'unprotected' exposed to abuse, do the politicians actually expect the public to remember which groups are 'protected' and which aren't in this ever growing list?

Why not just say that young and middle aged white men aren't 'protected' and they are on their own?

Absolutely ridiculous. And we elect these people!

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul M

All because the poor snowflakes cant cope with real life.

I wouldn't describe those who suffer a hate crime as a snowflake. Hate crimes include murder, violence and other forms of abuse.

Attitudes have successfully improved over the years towards minority, vulnerable and other groups that routinely suffered discrimination.

The issue of sexism, for example, has been at the fore for the last couple of years and is gradualy changing long held attitudes of male superiority. One example of this is the decision to scrap 'mansize' tissues in favour of 'extra large' tissues. Not the greatest act of sexism no, but it does show that people are now thinking about their attitudes more and changing them.

'Real life' is changing and younger people are genuinely horrified at the casual discrimination that existed when older people were their age.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The politicians are making a pig's ear out of this. What about those who are not 'protected'? Would it not be more appropriate to outlaw such behaviour against anyone?

I think you have a valid point. I suspect that the idea of protecting various groups is born from the historical extra probability that such groups were more likely to suffer discrimination, harrassment, abuse etc.

The problem with this has been that some groups have had extra help as opposed to others, most has been given to black people and the rest are gradually catching up. It has also given the impression that white, straight non disabled men breeze through life without any issues, which of course is nonsense.