Our thanks to Stu for this. Extracts:
Revising its guidance for prosecutors, the Crown Prosecution Service said the impact of tweeting abuse can be as “equally devastating” as shouting it…
Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said online abuse can fuel “dangerous hostility”…
The new legal guidance and accompanying CPS public statements guide prosecutors deciding whether to charge suspects of offences motivated by hostility towards people of different races, religions, sexuality, gender and disability. [J4MB: Does this mean that only men can be charged with online abuse towards women? We know most online abuse of women is carried out by other women.]
Cases should be pursued with the same “robust and proactive approach used with offline offending”…
Hate crime is any criminal offence “which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”. [J4MB: It’s perfectly reasonable for people to be hostile towards feminists online, damn near obligatory. Our blogs are hostile towards feminists. We’re driven by an understanding of these odious people, not prejudice.]
The difficulty is working out where the line is drawn between that and words that are simply offensive.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
‘The difficulty is working out where the line is drawn between that and words that are simply offensive.‘
I’m sure that’s the idea: unsure of what we can say and what we cannot, we will say nothing to anyone. What better way to control the most advanced and effective system of mass communication yet devised?
LikeLike
This marks the final nail in the coffin of free speech. Because the definition of ‘hate crime’ is so emphatically subjective, viz. ‘…perceived by the victim or any other person…’, it is now impossible to frame any critique, however legitimate and truthful, in terms that may avoid being interpreted as hate crime by those persons who are always ready to take offence.
George Orwell’s 1984 was written as a warning, to serve as an omen of evil that we must strive to avoid. It would appear that the CPS has adopted the dystopia of Airstrip One as an instruction manual and blueprint for the future of Britain.
LikeLike
Quote from the item;
“…Cases should be pursued with the same “robust and proactive approach used with offline offending…
Decoded Meaning;
“No effort should be spared in imagining what Might Have Happened in the worst possible scenario, and proceeding on that basis regardless of what Actually Did Happen, and despite all evidence to the contrary.”
For example – The Waterloogate scandal involving the innocent Mark Pearson and a mad aging fantasist Actress whose name and shame is….
Known to Everybody!
Another Quote from the item;
“….Hate crime is any criminal offence “which is perceived by the victim Or Any Other Person (my capitals) to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice….”
Decoded Meaning;
“…..All objective rationality has been abandoned to the extent that any third party can claim that they Actually Know, as if by magic, the motive – if any – of the author even where the alledged ‘victim’ does not agree that they Are One, and in the face of there being no proof or even evidence….
This situation represents;
1.
The soundest and most rational British Justice, in the finest tradition of those who authored The Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights.
2.
A grotesque corruption that shames the Nation’s (in)justice system and Enlightenment Principals, putting them on a par with any third world Tin-Pol Pot politico-tribalist shambolic dictatorship.
✔ Tick one option (only)….
LikeLike
I noted that the huge furore over “hate crime” directed at politicians during the last election vanished like a bubble when it turned out that it was Conservative male politicians had received the greatest volumes of hate.
LikeLike
Is it too much to hope that Saunders will be sacked as and when David Davies or Jacob Rees-Mogg takes over this wretched ‘Conservative’ party? Out of the door even faster than she can retrieve her other pair of sensible shoes.
LikeLike
I have just read the description of this Thought Crime in more detail, and it includes the following, and I quote:
“…..Hostility is not defined in the Act. Consideration should be given to ordinary dictionary definitions, which include ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike…”
Dislike and Unfriendliness?
So by law we are obliged to ‘Like’ someone and be ‘Friendly’
to them?
This is truly so perverted and ridiculous one can only hope that it will hasten it’s undoing.
LikeLike
So we now have a two tier system, taking crimes against some victims more seriously than the same crime committed against white, male, straight and non religous.
Have the police nothing better to do than investigate perceived sleights , instead of stabbings acid attacks etc
Men must complain to their MPs for a minister for men
LikeLike