Britain - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

But now using the word "bald" is part of the no-no language when used in a "harassing" manner

And? Spiteful litigation always uses whatever it can. If I was that pissed off about getting sacked that I wanted to sue, I'd bring up every grievance, no matter how small or trivial.

Not for just calling me bald - I don't imagine I'd get anywhere with that.

I don't know if the threat to violence is pertinent

You now doubt that just calling someone bald is enough of a reason to sue but you don't think additional threats to violence are relevant to a case in which threats of physical violance were issued? Come on. If you can't sue someone on grounds of harassment just for calling someone bald, as you have now doubted, then you can't tell us that just calling someone bald is grounds for harassment. The rags will always sensationalise it and take it out of context as I mentioned in my previous post.

If someone called me a bald ****, could I sue?

Number one, it depends entirely on the situation. Is this a workplace grievance or something down in the pub? A complete stranger or a friend? And don't just invent a scenario now, I'm saying this to make the point that it does indeed depend on the situation. The more you add to a hypothetical scenario, the more factors and variables you have to take in for the relevance of the case.

Just calling someone bald, or even a bald ****, will depend on so many other factors. Number two, once again, try it. You might find out that you need those other pertinent threats to make a valid case.

 

[HenrySwanson]

And? Spiteful litigation always uses whatever it can. If I was that pissed off about getting sacked that I wanted to sue, I'd bring up every grievance, no matter how small or trivial.



You now doubt that just calling someone bald is enough of a reason to sue but you don't think additional threats to violence are relevant to a case in which threats of physical violance were issued? Come on. If you can't sue someone on grounds of harassment just for calling someone bald, as you have now doubted, then you can't tell us that just calling someone bald is grounds for harassment. The rags will always sensationalise it and take it out of context as I mentioned in my previous post.


Number one, it depends entirely on the situation. Is this a workplace grievance or something down in the pub? A complete stranger or a friend? And don't just invent a scenario now, I'm saying this to make the point that it does indeed depend on the situation. The more you add to a hypothetical scenario, the more factors and variables you have to take in for the relevance of the case.

Just calling someone bald, or even a bald ****, will depend on so many other factors. Number two, once again, try it. You might find out that you need those other pertinent threats to make a valid case.

I always doubted just calling someone bald is enough grounds. However, if it can be linked to "sexual harassment", what is the limit? Even you don't know! That's not a way to live....

And then, if one judge sets a precedent by throwing one case out, what guarantee is it that another won't see it a different way?

 

[RYAN]

The best thing to do in these situations is try and make a joke and have a laugh. Otherwise the experience would be made even worse.

Anyway, I got my mum a bag of chips in the meantime so that's cheered her up a bit 😄👍

Pleased to say the ambulance arrived at 4.00AM yesterday. That's 38 hours after the district nurses requested the ambulance.

Anyway, She's been back home most of the day comfortable, happy and in good spirits. 🥹👍

 

[HenrySwanson]

Will be watching this:

Undercover film exposing UK far-right activists pulled from London festival

Film festival organisers make ‘heartbreaking’ decision not to show Undercover: Exposing the Far Right amid concerns over staff welfare

www.theguardian.com

 

[HenrySwanson]

EDIT: LOL. Tweets are far worse than a group racially beating a 14 year old, let's be honest



I think we're witnessing a complete narrative collapse and it's up to reasonable members of society to ensure the country doesn't go for the easy answers of the right/far-right.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think we're witnessing a complete narrative collapse and it's up to reasonable members of society to ensure the country doesn't go for the easy answers of the right/far-right.

Reasonable members of society don't think people are going to prison for making tweets.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Reasonable members of society don't think people are going to prison for making tweets.

Oh you again, lulz.

Man jailed after sharing 'grossly offensive' social media posts

A FIFTY-one-year-old Egremont man has become the latest person in the county to be jailed for posting racially aggravated online social media posts…

www.newsandstar.co.uk

Jailed for riot comments: justice or creeping censorship?

Tough sentences have been handed out to those who fanned the flames of disorder online but did not take part. Where will it lead?

www.thetimes.com

Still haven't replied to my post in the Islam thread I see. But then again, what's new. Don't address the issue but attack the messenger.

Come on now, this is your chance! A racist group attack on a 14 year old kid leads to a lenient sentence. Or are you actually not colourblind and the victim is the wrong colour for you to make some noise. Sad.

 

[Liquid]

it's up to reasonable members of society to ensure the country doesn't go for the easy answers of the right/far-right.

What are the hard answers/hard truths?

 

[HenrySwanson]

What are the hard answers/hard truths?

The easy answers from the far-right are to blame the immigrants.

The more accurate answer is to look at the policies and consequences around multiculturalism and a rapid population influx honestly, and the complete lack of long term planning in almost every sector by previous governments. Sticking plaster mentality has destroyed the country, and we're seeing the outcomes of the treatment of different ethnic groups, and the subsequent correction to those historical wrongs.