BBC news Black out

[carmanmemoranda]

He is an interesting character whether you like him or not.
He has got the gift of the gab, he knows how to work the crowd.

And that is the problem. A lot are easily led.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

No the list was about what I have noticed about the standard replays and tactics that the far left use over and over again.

Where the right wing just keep denying any other view.

News blackout is a good example of an accusation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny so fall back on a silly list to try to deny the truth

 

[securespark]

That's not the issue we are talking about is it

Surely it is?

I wouldn't go watching GB News then complaining about it...

 

[denso13]

You understand that insults and abuse aren't?

You understand that opinions on things often differ?

 

[ajohn]

He is an interesting character whether you like him or not.
He has got the gift of the gab, he knows how to work the crowd.

There is another factor as well Knowing what to stir up. Solutions other than say Brexit generally lacking. Brexit - carefully pick what to stir up with. This is essentiality what popularism is about. In some ways Trump like. He also uses fireworks at his rallies.

 

[JohnD]

You understand that insults and abuse aren't?

Are you thinking of stopping?

 

[motorbiking]

You understand that opinions on things often differ?

If only we had a law that could tell us the definition of stirring hatred, so that we didn't need to form our own incorrect opinion of it. oh wait.. we do.. I've posted it many times.

here it is again.

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

There was a chap jailed for 12 months just recently.. you might argue the CPS were bullied by the very lobby he was inciting hate towards as initially they opted not to prosecute, but accepted they were wrong.

 

[JohnD]

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

Like you.

When you abuse people who comment on Israel's racist genocide.

I suppose there must be a reason why you chose not to include a link to the source paragraph. You even added a false full stop, to make it look like a sentence. It was doubtless because you didn't want to include the rest of it, which demolishes your false claim.

I can see why you failed your exams.

 

[motorbiking]

Like you.

When you abuse people who comment on Israel's racist genocide.

I suppose there must be a reason why you chose not to include a link to the source paragraph. You even added a false full stop, to make it look like a sentence. It was doubtless because you didn't want to include the rest of it, which demolishes your false claim.

I can see why you failed your exams.

fire away with your arguments... I've provided links to the source many times..

please do tell me which words in the rest of it demolish my claims. Not section 2, 4 or 6. good luck proving section 5, or 1b, given the frequency of which you have posted.

Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.​

(1)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.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

(4)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.

(5)A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.

(6)This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme

 

[JohnD]

I've provided links to the source many times..v

You have failed to show a sentence or paragraph saying what you falsely claimed.

Stirring hatred towards Zionists is not protected, because they meet the definition of a race, in the public order act, particularly using the above example.

No they don't.

 

[motorbiking]

I wonder why you don't want to post your arguments that apparently

demolishes your false claim.

Is it because they only work in your own head?

 

[JohnD]

there is no "definition of race" in the text you pasted.

the definition of a race, in the public order act

I've provided links to the source many times..v

You have failed to show a sentence or paragraph saying what you falsely claimed.

Stirring hatred towards Zionists is not protected, because they meet the definition of a race, in the public order act, particularly using the above example.

No they don't.

 

[Vinty]

There is another factor as well Knowing what to stir up.

There is a lot of anxiety in Britain at the moment about things like illegal immigration and the 'Muslim threat'.
Others factors contribute as well, this makes fertile ground for populists.
Labour, so far haven't shown any inclination to take the problem of mass immigration, legal and illegal seriously.
That doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[denso13]

If only we had a law that could tell us the definition of stirring hatred, so that we didn't need to form our own incorrect opinion of it. oh wait.. we do.. I've posted it many times.

And some don't think hatred is being stirred. You are not judge and jury.

 

[motorbiking]

there is no "definition of race" in the text you pasted.

Let me help you with that... go back a page (btw I've posted this many times)

17 Meaning of “racial hatred”.​

In this Part “racial hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

Then there is buckets of case law, that supports the idea that the definition is wide and victims may come within the definition under more than one of the references. e.g. Irish travellers, asylum seekers, refugees and of course Jews, Sikhs etc. All might not fit a lay persons idea of race, but both the courts and CPS are happy to accept they are.