I'm really over old idiots in Thailand

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, LeatFingies said:

Show me a crime for mental abuse or verbal abuse. 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/verbal-abuse-and-harassment-public

[CharlieH]

4 minutes ago, LeatFingies said:

Show me a crime for mental abuse or verbal abuse. 

Hows this :

 

"Disturbing the peace, also known as breach of the peace, is a criminal offense that occurs when a person engages in some form of unruly public behavior,"

 

Verbal abuse in public place may well fall into this category.

[Andre0720]

On 9/16/2021 at 2:51 PM, sherwood said:

Mate it is his prerogative to express his opinion on what ever he thinks fit. You just showed your own opinion and well, your hate.

Live and let live.

 

he had to continually run down gay people in profanities ...over & over ....I

So this fellow is expressing his opinion on whatever he thinks fit, but in a way reserved for uneducated people.

"Live and let live.", well this is exactly what the uneducated individual is doing, not letting people live the way they want, and uses profanities to describe their ways of life.

And you accept that as "expressing an opinion".

We will have to agree to disagree here, hehe

[Nickelbeer]

On 9/16/2021 at 4:28 PM, Hummin said:

So sad, 76 years old and still not out of the closet and carry his anger to his death bed. God save him

The first line of attack of a gay supremacist is to accuse their detractors af being closet gays. Some people just naturally hate anyone who doesn't look and behave exactly as they do. I see as much of this kind of thinking among gays, as any other group of people. I like folks who mind their own business. It's always kept me out of trouble. Homosexuals do not threaten me. We have absolutely nothing in common. I am quite willing to let everyone find their own path to happiness, as long as it's legal and moral. At age 71, I am unlikely to change my way of thinking. ????

[Tanomazu]

22 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Hows this :

 

"Disturbing the peace, also known as breach of the peace, is a criminal offense that occurs when a person engages in some form of unruly public behavior,"

 

Verbal abuse in public place may well fall into this category.

Verbal abuse is nowhere near enough to constitute a breach of the peace. It only happens

 

"when a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace

 

Very hard to see how "verbal abuse" can result in harm to a person or his property.  The threat of imminent harm, riot, assault would most likely be required, verbal abuse itself is not enough.

[CharlieH]

5 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

 

 

Very hard to see how "verbal abuse" can result in harm to a person or his property.  The threat of imminent harm, riot, assault would most likely be required, verbal abuse itself is not enough.

 

And yet that is exactly how the majority of Bar nbrawls start. Or clash of football supporters as an example and many others.

In my opinion, the majority of physical encounters started with such arguments, then escalates to from verbal abuse to physical and there you have it.

[Tanomazu]

2 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

 

And yet that is exactly how the majority of Bar nbrawls start. Or clash of football supporters as an example and many others.

True, but there would have to be an element of imminent harm, assault, affray, riot or some such, or a justified belief that physical assault was immiment. Without that it's probably not a breach of the peace.

 

It's true to say there is no such law as a crime of "verbal abuse" or "verbal assault". There is a crime of physical assault, and certain instances where assault, harm, riot, affray and such can be imminently expected would be breach of the peace potentially, but mere verbal abuse is unlikely to suffice. Threatening physical harm for instance could be a crime.

 

 

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

True, but there would have to be an element of imminent harm, assault, affray, riot or some such, or a justified belief that physical assault was immiment. Without that it's probably not a breach of the peace.

 

It's true to say there is no such law as a crime of "verbal abuse" or "verbal assault". There is a crime of physical assault, and certain instances where assault, harm, riot, affray and such can be imminently expected would be breach of the peace potentially, but mere verbal abuse is unlikely to suffice. Threatening physical harm for instance could be a crime.

 

 

Public order offences

1.  These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:

Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4;

Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or

Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.

[rcuthbert]

Me thinketh the OP protests to much.

 

The tail's wagging the dog  because most are scared of being bitten by the Toy Poodle.

[zzaa09]

11 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Public order offences

1.  These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:

Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4;

Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or

Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.

Very very sensitive toward most everything, aren't we? 

Created, less naturally evolved.

[Tanomazu]

22 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Public order offences

1.  These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:

Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4;

Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or

Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.

Yes, so exactly what I said, threatening verbal abuse which causes fear of immediate violence.

 

Note also: In February 2014 Parliament passed a redaction of the statute which removed the word "insulting" in subsections "a" and "b" following pressure from citizens.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Public_Order_Act_1986

 

Also note those offences do not apply if you are in your own house or the conduct is reasonable.

 

In Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Justice Moses ruled that in cases involving freedom of expression, prosecution is unlawful unless it is necessary to prevent public disorder.

 

Also see Norwood v DPP: "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence".

Edited September 17, 2021 by Tanomazu

[Fairynuff]

2 hours ago, LeatFingies said:

Show me a crime for mental abuse or verbal abuse. 

Look no further... this forum

[zzaa09]

2 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

Look no further... this forum

Indeed. And other similar venues.

[whoppee]

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-of-older-adults

[sherwood]

3 hours ago, Andre0720 said:

he had to continually run down gay people in profanities ...over & over ....I

So this fellow is expressing his opinion on whatever he thinks fit, but in a way reserved for uneducated people.

"Live and let live.", well this is exactly what the uneducated individual is doing, not letting people live the way they want, and uses profanities to describe their ways of life.

And you accept that as "expressing an opinion".

We will have to agree to disagree here, hehe

Live and let live, yes that is what I said. How being uneducated comes into it I have no idea, indoctrinated I could understand.

I am 63 and do not like all this do goody do BS but I try to share my disdain with friends of similar views. I tolerate, I have yet to retaliate. No skin or my nose.

[elgenon]

16 hours ago, jazzdog32095 said:

You failed to include mongers commonly known as sexpats

I think the population as a whole don't like them. The people making money off them do. It is called bifurcation.

[Fairynuff]

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Actually they do! You're obviously blind to that.

Also being gay is  not a choice.

Also referring to being gay as a lifestyle is about as passe as leisure suits.

Are you politely telling me I shouldn’t be wearing one anymore?

[Hummin]

13 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

The first line of attack of a gay supremacist is to accuse their detractors af being closet gays. Some people just naturally hate anyone who doesn't look and behave exactly as they do. I see as much of this kind of thinking among gays, as any other group of people. I like folks who mind their own business. It's always kept me out of trouble. Homosexuals do not threaten me. We have absolutely nothing in common. I am quite willing to let everyone find their own path to happiness, as long as it's legal and moral. At age 71, I am unlikely to change my way of thinking. ????

There could be many reasons for his insecurity, noe only one. People are people and a product of the cultyre, parents, neighboorhood, teachers, friends (bullies), and other family. And also their mental state and social IQ. 

 

 

[Fairynuff]

13 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

gay supremacist

????????????????????????????????????????

[gamb00ler]

On 9/16/2021 at 3:36 PM, canthai55 said:

Why oh Why do people give two hoots what other people say, think, believe !!!

Doesn't your post convey the same sentiment that your post is complaining about?

[jazzdog32095]

5 hours ago, elgenon said:

I think the population as a whole don't like them. The people making money off them do. It is called bifurcation.

Very sad seeing girls 16-24 years old after only months in the trade walking the streets like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman, likely scarred for life. A compassionate society would enforce the laws as written rather than pulling over every farang on a motorbike.

[Nickelbeer]

5 hours ago, Fairynuff said:

????????????????????????????????????????

If you doubt they exist, look at some of the comments, which attempt to frame heterosexuality as an aberration, rather than the norm. No one reproduces by homosexual contact.

[sead]

Im happy that he can choose his friends. Cant you? 

[Longwood50]

21 hours ago, Fairynuff said:

You apparently have perfected the art of talking through yours

Ah, the snipe.  As said, a person's sexual preference is their business and no one else.  The craving desire on the part of gays, lesbians, transsexuals', etc to publicly proclaim who they like to have sex with shows they are not convinced themselves of its appropriateness and want public affirmation.  

I don't and I don't believe most people do care who are what other people have as a sexual preference.  I don't believe most people care what food your prefer, what drinks you like, what clothes you like to wear, your religion, your politics, or your national heritage,   Those that feel the need to put their sexual orientation on display and clamor for public approval need to do what they want, leave others who don't share their lifestyle out of it, and if they mentally can't deal with that get counseling. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

19 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Ah, the snipe.  As said, a person's sexual preference is their business and no one else.  The craving desire on the part of gays, lesbians, transsexuals', etc to publicly proclaim who they like to have sex with shows they are not convinced themselves of its appropriateness and want public affirmation.  

I don't and I don't believe most people do care who are what other people have as a sexual preference.  I don't believe most people care what food your prefer, what drinks you like, what clothes you like to wear, your religion, your politics, or your national heritage,   Those that feel the need to put their sexual orientation on display and clamor for public approval need to do what they want, leave others who don't share their lifestyle out of it, and if they mentally can't deal with that get counseling. 

For what it's worth I and others have replied to this type of logic by this poster in the last day or two and it is clear he is sticking to his opinion as I am to mine. Everything then gets deleted as off topic. So if you are contemplating replying don't bother. 

[Fairynuff]

3 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

If you doubt they exist, look at some of the comments, which attempt to frame heterosexuality as an aberration, rather than the norm. No one reproduces by homosexual contact.

They exists in the minds of bigots.. Your implication that sex is for reproduction (only) is utter nonsense, but I see exactly where you’re coming from. Exactly 

[zzaa09]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

That won't go down well................despite the accuracy of your comments.

The woke have risen and quietly taken control.

[Fairynuff]

1 minute ago, zzaa09 said:

woke

???????????? 

[Fairynuff]

2 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

That won't go down well................despite the accuracy of your comments.

Interested to know which bit you consider accurate 

[rcuthbert]

56 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

I love these experts and their reports. When these are commissioned the first question is “what result do you want” and they work from there. It matters not whether it’s 1% or 101%. Who cares, people just want to be treated fairly and equally 

Yeah, 98% don't want to be called names by an  angry minority.
Google - group think, argumentum ad hominem, ethos, logos, and pathos.