Australian non tax resident- non-financial issues.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Wanna bet?

 

But also irrelevant. It may be rude, but it should not be illegal, and certainly not a crime worthy of prison.

That’s not what the U.K. law says.

 

 

[Hanaguma]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not what the U.K. law says.

 

 

Yet another good reason not to live there, then. 

[Pickwick]

18 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

But also irrelevant. It may be rude, but it should not be illegal, and certainly not a crime worthy of prison.

When specific groups have been historically treated appallingly because of the colour of their skin or sexual orientation etc. - hanged by the neck from trees; thrown of the roofs of tall buildings; and assaulted and murdered (still) in 'civilised' societies, I think robust laws to protect them are reasonable.

 

That we need to have clear and open dialogue about what constitutes a hate crime is not in doubt (which is why the word 'insulting' was actually removed from the Public Order Act in 2014) - but opposition to such laws is rarely reasonable and often contains small digs at these groups, which betrays the underlying reasons for the critique.

 

Freedom of speech is protected under the above mentioned Public Order Act. Freedom of Expression is also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (which I am sure will surprise some on here), and as far as I am aware is still existent post-Brexit.

 

Freedom of Speech does carry a burden of responsibility in the eyes of the law(s) (laws which came into being under both left and right wing governments). Examples of restrictions would be disseminating materials that could encourage acts of terrorism, language that incites hatred on the ground of race, religion or sexual orientation and indecent messages or threats to an individual or group.

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

When specific groups have been historically treated appallingly because of the colour of their skin or sexual orientation etc. - hanged by the neck from trees; thrown of the roofs of tall buildings; and assaulted and murdered (still) in 'civilised' societies, I think robust laws to protect them are reasonable.

 

That we need to have clear and open dialogue about what constitutes a hate crime is not in doubt (which is why the word 'insulting' was actually removed from the Public Order Act in 2014) - but opposition to such laws is rarely reasonable and often contains small digs at these groups, which betrays the underlying reasons for the critique.

 

Freedom of speech is protected under the above mentioned Public Order Act. Freedom of Expression is also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (which I am sure will surprise some on here), and as far as I am aware is still existent post-Brexit.

 

Freedom of Speech does carry a burden of responsibility in the eyes of the law(s) (laws which came into being under both left and right wing governments). Examples of restrictions would be disseminating materials that could encourage acts of terrorism, language that incites hatred on the ground of race, religion or sexual orientation and indecent messages or threats to an individual or group.

In other words, no freedom. 

 

All the appalling acts in your first paragraph are already illegal. This law won't make them MORE illegal. Threats are already illegal.  But that tricky "incites hatred" bit..... far too open to interpretation and abuse. People getting arrested for saying rude words or insulting others is idiocy.  It leaves people vulnerable to lawfare and stifles free expression.

 

 

[Pickwick]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

In other words, no freedom. 

I am not sure which part you do not understand. Freedom comes with a responsibility to the laws of the land. This has always been the case.

 

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

People getting arrested for saying rude words or insulting others is idiocy.  It leaves people vulnerable to lawfare and stifles free expression.

No one is being arrested for saying 'rude words or insulting others'. The Public Order Act - which came in to existence during the tenure of Margaret Thatcher - was amended in 2014 to remove the word 'insulting' not add it. That was during Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary.

 

That you are writing this opinion in a thread about a member of the new Labour government, it might be prudent to repeat '1986', 'Theresa May' and 'Margaret Thatcher'. If you believe they are responsible for eroding your freedoms, then that's your opinion but I disagree and don't see it in the laws.

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

It leaves people vulnerable to lawfare and stifles free expression

Lawfare? You mean like Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation - which cross-party MPs called 'lawfare' in a 2022 parliamentary debate stating 'they cause a chilling effect on freedom of expression'. The legislation used by wealthy people, including the former chair of the Tory Party Nadhim Zawahi, who tried to hide the fact he was under Serious Fraud Squad investigations over his tax declarations (subsequently having to pay a £5 million fine over what he called a 'careless mistake')?

 

Edited July 12 by Pickwick
added date

[Hanaguma]

8 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

I am not sure which part you do not understand. Freedom comes with a responsibility to the laws of the land. This has always been the case.

 

No one is being arrested for saying 'rude words or insulting others'. The Public Order Act - which came in to existence during the tenure of Margaret Thatcher - was amended in 2014 to remove the word 'insulting' not add it. That was during Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary.

 

That you are writing this opinion in a thread about a member of the new Labour government, it might be prudent to repeat '1986', 'Theresa May' and 'Margaret Thatcher'. If you believe they are responsible for eroding your freedoms, then that's your opinion but I disagree and don't see it in the laws.

Lawfare? You mean like Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation - which cross-party MPs called 'lawfare' in a 2022 parliamentary debate stating 'they cause a chilling effect on freedom of expression'. The legislation used by wealthy people, including the former chair of the Tory Party Nadhim Zawahi, who tried to hide the fact he was under Serious Fraud Squad investigations over his tax declarations?

 

It is a place where mean Tweets get people criminal prosecution. Or brief videos of a dancing dog doing the Nazi salute. 

 

And don't get me started on the ridiculous idea of "protected groups"....

[Chomper Higgot]

15 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

It is a place where mean Tweets get people criminal prosecution. Or brief videos of a dancing dog doing the Nazi salute. 

 

And don't get me started on the ridiculous idea of "protected groups"....

No please don’t.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Pickwick said:

When specific groups have been historically treated appallingly because of the colour of their skin or sexual orientation etc. - hanged by the neck from trees; thrown of the roofs of tall buildings; and assaulted and murdered (still) in 'civilised' societies, I think robust laws to protect them are reasonable.

 

Unless it is your contention that minorites are being lynched, IMO the only thing needed is for the law to be colour blind. If a crime is committed it should be a crime whatever the victim's ethnicity. I despise the idea that some groups should be treated differently now because of historical problems.

 

 

[Pickwick]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I despise the idea that some groups should be treated differently now because of historical problems.

 

It is my contention that minorities are getting assaulted and murdered because they belong to minority groups. I don't know where you live that there are no issues of racism, no homophobic assaults and no murders of anyone because they are transgender. It's not the UK certainly, where David Lammy is Foreign Secretary.

 

 

[Pickwick]

22 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

It is a place where mean Tweets get people criminal prosecution. Or brief videos of a dancing dog doing the Nazi salute. 

 

This is one specific case out of hundreds of thousands. Apparently, the main issue was the repeated phrase 'gas the Jews, gas the Jews'. It certainly highlights the need to have a robust procedure of legal review, to try and balance legal protections with individual freedoms. This is true for all laws, however ,and I don't think anyone is seriously arguing with that. So far, however, I can find reference to six controversial cases out of 749,000 or a percentage of 0.0009 of the cases, read into that what you will.

 

22 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

And don't get me started on the ridiculous idea of "protected groups"....

 

The Law Commission - the independent, statutory body, which keeps the law of England and Wales under review - states on page 2 of its Hate Crime Report that "the law does not punish someone for having beliefs that others may class as homophobic, but if those beliefs lead the person to attack a gay or lesbian person, the law will step in".

 

Like the previous post, if you do not believe that there is a disproportionate amount of crime and violence targeting certain groups, that is fine. There's a huge amount of data, from a myriad sources, which would suggest otherwise though.