Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Double standard: concrete proof Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Those that are interested in fighting racism and inequality aren't doing themselves any favours by advocating jail sentences for tweets, it's exactly the sort of thing that drives ordinary people into the arms of groups like the EDL and BNP.
    Wow, we agree on something!

    FWIW, most serious anti-fascists that I know certainly don't advocate anyone going to jail for saying something racist on Twitter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Those that are interested in fighting racism and inequality aren't doing themselves any favours by advocating jail sentences for tweets, it's exactly the sort of thing that drives ordinary people into the arms of groups like the EDL and BNP.
    The jail sentence for Liam Stacey was a massive own goal for the CPS, and a Free kick for the BNP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    It recently won Newspaper of the Year.
    Well it wasn't going to be the News of The World this year was it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davethedavedave)
    The Daily Mail have an agenda. The fact that your playing their trumpet right now clearly demonstrates that you have gone for it.

    While what they print maybe factually accurate, it may just be a selective part of the truth. Or the facts could be spun in a manner that would suit the typical Daily Mail reader. Because if you bear in mind that it is their objective to sell as many newspapers as possible, it is easy to see why they would cherry pick sensationalist headlines....

    Also, the Daily Mail have repetitively lied in the past....

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15537612

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...an-subramanyam

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...holic-abortion

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/ma...blishing.media

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001...sandpublishing

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003...papers.privacy
    And of course no other papers have ever been caught lying...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/12/cps-s...ifran-nur.html

    http://fullfact.org/factcheck/Muslim..._drinking-3179

    Apparently the sentence was suspended because one of the girls initially tried to break up the fight and the 'victims' boyfriend punched her in the face - the situation escalated.

    Judges try to make a decision based on reliable, permissible evidence.

    There are plenty of examples of them being hard on Muslims and easy on white racists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    'Evidence' is an unneccesary point not needed. Like it says and relating it to this point, pointing to a small number of cases which obviously do not represent the whole system itself and suggesting that this is 'concrete proof' that double standards is essentially a built in factor in decisions made by the legal system is illogical and thus a fallacy.

    In order for this not to apply to cherry picking, 'double standards' must be a very high majority, almost complete, factor in every legal decision related to these cases. And given i severely doubt anyone has such an illogical view as to suggest this is true and can back this up (if it were true, it would be in the media. Quite clearly 'bad' case go in the media, normal cases sentenced fine do not) then the point stands.
    That is not obvious to me, and clearly it is not obvious to the OP.
    Without evidence you are only going on your own convictions that the system doesn't contain these kinds of biases and any such mention is an irregularity but that may not necessarily be the case.

    The OP suggests that it is, I was hoping for some evidence that it is not the case. If none can be produced then clearly you are going on your assumptions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Before reading the thread let me guess the response.

    "herp derp daily fail!" :dunce:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homonk)
    http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/12/cps-s...ifran-nur.html

    http://fullfact.org/factcheck/Muslim..._drinking-3179

    Apparently the sentence was suspended because one of the girls initially tried to break up the fight and the 'victims' boyfriend punched her in the face - the situation escalated.

    Judges try to make a decision based on reliable, permissible evidence.

    There are plenty of examples of them being hard on Muslims and easy on white racists.
    Such as.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davethedavedave)
    When you only include the votes of OAP homes and the the BNP membership....
    Haha. Curse old people! With their racist memory of Britain before multiculturalism. They need reprogrammed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chimaira)

    The OP suggests that it is, I was hoping for some evidence that it is not the case. If none can be produced then clearly you are going on your assumptions.
    Ah i see, as illogical as i thought you were. Good to know i now have my proof

    But dont worry bro, completely ignore what was actually said and what cherry picking actually means if thats what keeps you going through the day, just know it is the probably the least logical stance to take :rolleyes:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I hope your house isn't made from any concrete because even the little pigs, let alone the wolf, would be able to blow it down
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCount.)
    -10 points for using the Daily Mail as a credible source.
    -10000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000 points for pointing out the obvious
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why's it always got to be about race, tufc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Saying "kill the white ****" isn't necessarily racist. It's context dependent and in this context it could be either. Akin, to saying "black *******". Saying those words within the context of the violence or before the violence started doesn't necessarily mean a racist motivation.

    Having said that, they should've been charged for assault. And the man shouldn't have been jailed for his racist tweets.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Those that are interested in fighting racism and inequality aren't doing themselves any favours by advocating jail sentences for tweets, it's exactly the sort of thing that drives ordinary people into the arms of groups like the EDL and BNP.
    A jail sentence may be a bit harsh, but that's how general deterrence works really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    A jail sentence may be a bit harsh, but that's how general deterrence works really.
    We shouldn't be punishing people with state violence for committing a thought-crime, that's the hallmark of a tyrannical regime.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    We shouldn't be punishing people with state violence for committing a thought-crime, that's the hallmark of a tyrannical regime.
    If you post explicit racism on a site like Twitter then don't be surprised when you get in trouble. He was hardly keeping his obvious racism to himself, he plastered it on the internet, so I'm not sure it's even a 'thought-crime'?

    And we aren't even close to a tyrannical regime.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Davethedavedave)
    The Daily Mail have an agenda. The fact that your playing their trumpet right now clearly demonstrates that you have gone for it.

    While what they print maybe factually accurate, it may just be a selective part of the truth. Or the facts could be spun in a manner that would suit the typical Daily Mail reader. Because if you bear in mind that it is their objective to sell as many newspapers as possible, it is easy to see why they would cherry pick sensationalist headlines....

    Also, the Daily Mail have repetitively lied in the past....

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15537612

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...an-subramanyam

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...holic-abortion

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/ma...blishing.media

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001...sandpublishing

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003...papers.privacy
    Basically, summarising the above. Daily mail is a terrible newspaper.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The cherry pickers called. They want their Daily Mail reader back.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    If you post explicit racism on a site like Twitter then don't be surprised when you get in trouble. He was hardly keeping his obvious racism to himself, he plastered it on the internet, so I'm not sure it's even a 'thought-crime'?

    And we aren't even close to a tyrannical regime.
    Personally I think that the arrest and incarceration of a young man for posting silly things on Twitter makes a mockery of the British justice system and shows the British public up as fools for allowing such behaviour to qualify as 'policing'. Have they really got nothing better to do than follow up the complaints of middle class bleeding-heart liberals that feign outrage whenever someome mutters something they disagree with?

    Anyone that supports the imprisonment of Liam Stacey is a fascist that needs to to have a long hard think about the sort of society they'd like to live in.
 
 
 
Poll
What is your favourite film genre?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.