Derfel Cadarn Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 2 hours ago, Heartofice said: Yes and you failed it. Thats the problem. Except it’s worse than that, you have to expect the Scottish parliament and a bunch of untrained police officers to be the arbiters of ‘reasonable’. It’s thr procurator fiscal service who will decide, ultimately, as they make the decision on whether to prosecute a case. That’s the way it is currently, with crimes such as Criminal Justice and Licencing (Scotland) Act 2010 S38 which largely replaced the old common law Breach of the Peace. It also refers to ‘a reasonable person’ in respect of fear, alarm, annoyance. Thr old breach of the peace needed fear or alarm, and I think there was also a public element needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 The 'reasonable person' test is also applied through a whole slew of employment issues, including employment tribunals which have ruled in favour of those who have expressed gender-critical beliefs. This law, in other words, does nothing particularly radical or even new, except extend existing protections on race to other characteristics. JK Rowling may sleep easy in whichever one of her 218 beds she's using tonight. kissdbyfire 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) It’s widely acknowledged that the wording in the legislation is vague and ambiguous and this has to be interpreted by police officers on the ground who will only be given the bare minimum of training on how to deal with the issues. The chairman of the Scottish police federation has admitted officers are in a total muddle about it. But they still have to investigate all these claims. So they might not bother looking into whether your bike was stolen, but they will do something if your mum said something vaguely insulting in your house ( so that’s something eh Spocky!) Then if no crime is recorded they can still note it down as a non crime hate incident just so employers can check it when you try and get a job. Bad enough in England but in Scotland they don’t need to remove it if it’s deemed trivial apparently. So it might never get to court, doesn’t need to for it to still be a problem. Certainly JK Rowling is hoping she gets taken to court though because then it will put a spotlight on the farcical law for everyone to see. Edited April 2 by Heartofice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Rishi agrees with JK Rowling, that settles this argument - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmmqq4qv81qo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 13 minutes ago, Heartofice said: It’s widely acknowledged that the wording in the legislation is vague and ambiguous and this has to be interpreted by police officers on the ground who will only be given the bare minimum of training on how to deal with the issues. I hate to break it to you, but this basically applies to almost all legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: I hate to break it to you, but this basically applies to almost all legislation. Well that’s reassuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 I failed the reasonable person test? Damn, didn't realize I'd ever been called upon to render legally binding judgement in a court of law - here I was giving my own personal opinion on a message board. And I failed it while expressing that I'd accept the outcome of the trial and acknowledging we don't have all the facts available too. If my deficiencies which haven't even been addressed via instruction from a judge can fail the poor reasonable person test so dramatically then the legal system must be unworkable. Or maybe you're being overly dramatic to serve your argument, it happens to the best of us. Which Tyler, Prince of the North, Mr. Chatywin et al. and 2 others 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Just now, karaddin said: I failed the reasonable person test? Damn, didn't realize I'd ever been called upon to render legally binding judgement in a court of law - here I was giving my own personal opinion on a message board. And I failed it while expressing that I'd accept the outcome of the trial and acknowledging we don't have all the facts available too. If my deficiencies which haven't even been addressed via instruction from a judge can fail the poor reasonable person test so dramatically then the legal system must be unworkable. Or maybe you're being overly dramatic to serve your argument, it happens to the best of us. I was being flippant, but I’d be deeply worried if the person making decisions thought white people couldn’t experience racism, or some of the other dodgy things you’ve said over the years I won’t go in to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Lol that's not even close to what I said, but agreed - let's not go into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Racial prejudice =/= racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 47 minutes ago, Heartofice said: I was being flippant, but I’d be deeply worried if the person making decisions thought white people couldn’t experience racism, or some of the other dodgy things you’ve said over the years I won’t go in to. On the micro level white people can experience it in the UK or US, but on the macro level it's not comparable at all to what minorities experience. Arguing that it is means you're flying at ludicrous speed without buckling your seatbelt. Prince of the North 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: On the micro level white people can experience it in the UK or US, but on the macro level it's not comparable at all to what minorities experience. Arguing that it is means you're flying at ludicrous speed without buckling your seatbelt. This was very specifically about a POC calling a white police officer a f'ing white bitch iirc. It was about whether it was a criminal (public order) offence or not, it definitely was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) Honestly if you are wanting to talk about the definitions of racism by using the ‘academic’ ( or progressive left) terminology, where it’s all about ‘power’ balance, rather than the way most people understand the term, then honestly I can’t be bothered with that level of silliness. Unfortunately, that really was the lens that Karradin was viewing the above incident through, which is why it was seemingly handwaved as ok. Very reasonable. Edited April 2 by Heartofice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Do you think Kerr was targeting the officer because he was white? Of course she wasn't, she was a belligerent drunk and he was a police officer responding to an incident - she verbally lashed out at the person who was in the right because they were acting in an antagonistic manner to her in that moment. An individual on their own might fear violence against them for any number of irrational reasons, but if that were the case it would have been true regardless of calling him white. Now as it happens it seems likely that that belligerent behavior was also criminal and BFC is obviously a far better judge of that than I am, and the outcome will include the application of the reasonable person test - something with plenty of precedent in both Aus and UK legal systems. Not something new and radical which was the actual point under discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 6 minutes ago, karaddin said: Do you think Kerr was targeting the officer because he was white? Of course she wasn't, she was a belligerent drunk and he was a police officer responding to an incident - she verbally lashed out at the person who was in the right because they were acting in an antagonistic manner to her in that moment. An individual on their own might fear violence against them for any number of irrational reasons, but if that were the case it would have been true regardless of calling him white. Now as it happens it seems likely that that belligerent behavior was also criminal and BFC is obviously a far better judge of that than I am, and the outcome will include the application of the reasonable person test - something with plenty of precedent in both Aus and UK legal systems. Not something new and radical which was the actual point under discussion. Great except it was you who mentioned power dynamics between white and black people last time. I guess now it’s not relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Yeah, the white cop in the Met is extremely unlikely to have faced a history of professional and personal discrimination against him on the basis of being white. That removes any of the "loading" that can accompany being called white. I also said context matters, a white cop in Japan being called white would be an entirely different thing, but your characterization of my position would say that I'd deny racism could be present there. But yet again we're talking about reasonable person in a court of law, I can personally think the cop is a thin skinned prick that should have ignored it and still accept that the behavior matches the legal definition of the crime and that a guilty verdict rendered as a result of a trial would be legitimate. I would still vote guilty were I to be on the jury for such a trial if the instructions and evidence support it being the case despite my personal feelings. I didn't bring that case up to relitigate it when my primary point from start to finish was questioning what's going on with the resourcing when that takes 2 years to process, and BFC provided the answers I was looking for. I brought it up now as another example of the reasonable person test which you'd previously thought was fine and good when yet now you're acting like it's a new and radical idea. Mr. Chatywin et al. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 The Right. What a bunch of intellectual titans and visionaries. I am so jealous of the quality of these people. Seriously though, who the fuck thinks Truss is anything more than a punctured whoopee cushion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 21 minutes ago, Spockydog said: The Right. What a bunch of intellectual titans and visionaries. I am so jealous of the quality of these people. Seriously though, who the fuck thinks Truss is anything more than a punctured whoopee cushion. It seems her previous book, "How We Fucked Britain in 10 Years" didn't sell so well. Mr. Chatywin et al., Matrim Fox Cauthon and AncalagonTheBlack 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Never forget the Liz Truss line. Mr. Chatywin et al., Spockydog and mormont 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 The police have decided Rowling has not done anything criminal JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts