Section 5: Govt admits defeat

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

A bit like families .. being well...nasty. And a few hours later everybody is happy. And they all lived happily for ever and ever.

But we all know that ^ doesn't always happen, hence why domestic violence and child protection issues are high on the agenda for interested agencies.

Here you are Fruity. How it fails.

I was once slandered by some scum bags - like the police get - when I was a local government employee. My union and employers said it wasn't worth taking action because the scum bags didn't have any money and you can't seize their assets because he house belonged to the council.

Law = fail

Perks of the job

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

Here you are Fruity. How it fails.

I was once slandered by some scum bags - like the police get - when I was a local government employee. My union and employers said it wasn't worth taking action because the scum bags didn't have any money and you can't seize their assets because he house belonged to the council.

Law = fail

Perks of the job

So some nasty people called you names. MTFU and get over it, life is sometimes a bit shitty, but the alternative is no better.

Originally Posted by Fruity

But we all know that ^ doesn't always happen, hence why domestic violence and child protection issues are high on the agenda for interested agencies.

Domestic violence and abuse of children - bad

Agencies would be more than busy if they had to resolve every verbal altercation that takes place between families. A big difference. How many officers have split up arguing couples and told them to 'grow up' and left them to nurse their egos? Best not start counting.

Yes, like you, I have witnessed verbal aggression toward children more times than I can remember. Even worse are those who exact punishment in more subtle ways.

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

How it fails.

I was once slandered by some scum bags - like the police get - when I was a local government employee. My union and employers said it wasn't worth taking action because the scum bags didn't have any money and you can't seize their assets because he house belonged to the council.

Law = fail

That ^ reads to me as though your union and employer agreed it was actionable. Law = win.

... but decided it wasn't worth it. Money = fail.

Originally Posted by Cousin Jack

So some nasty people called you names. MTFU and get over it, life is sometimes a bit shitty, but the alternative is no better.

A gross over simplification Jack. Imagine if you were in one of the professions such as a doctor or a copper and the local shits spread malicious rumours about you because they couldn't get what they wanted from you. Do you then MTFU? Shrug it off or give the fuckers a good hiding?

Personally I would rely on my excellent reputation and just regard them as the shit that they are. One should never value the comments of people that one does not value. An excellent strategy which I commend to all those who join the professions.

Originally Posted by Fruity

That ^ reads to me as though your union and employer agreed it was actionable. Law = win.

... but decided it wasn't worth it. Money = fail.

Yes. Money fail. Imagine the local rag headlines. "Council wastes £75 thousand pounds of tax payers' suing no good scum bags. We demand an enquiry!"

They would also have enjoyed the day in court as it would have brought a little excitement to their miserable lives.

Until they introduce the Korky Kourt method it is still a law fail.

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

Yes. Money fail. Imagine the local rag headlines. "Council wastes £75 thousand pounds of tax payers' suing no good scum bags. We demand an enquiry!"

They would also have enjoyed the day in court as it would have brought a little excitement to their miserable lives.

Until they introduce the Korky Kourt method it is still a law fail.

Nope, you would have won but as the offenders didnt have any proceeds to cover the costs your employers decided to bin the action as there was a financial loss on their part.

Law=Win

Balance sheet=Loss



In the big scheme of things this amendment to Sec 5 means very little...............if you call someone a cuddly wuddly beary beary boo who takes offence to it and regards it as abusive and causes alarm, harrassment and distress you are still getting nicked.............the only difference is the removal of insulting which is going to make some big time lawyers a fortune arguing it at the Old Bailey but have very little effect on the great british public at large

Originally Posted by Bigyin

Nope, you would have won but as the offenders didnt have any proceeds to cover the costs your employers decided to bin the action as there was a financial loss on their part.

Law=Win

Balance sheet=Loss

Law - Judiciary = Fail.

Why? The system is designed for suing only those who have money to get redress. Maybe a large fine with the threat of up to ten years in prison would be a better alternative to shut up the maliciousness of scum bags. Failing that the stocks in the market place.

Some laws are designed to serve and protect the weak, feeble, frail and those of a delicate and fragile disposition. But to feel hurt, harassed and distressed at being called a cuddly wuddly beary beary boo suggests they need psychiatric help. But then that would remove yet another power from the police. Oh dear whatever would they do?

Originally Posted by Bigyin

In the big scheme of things this amendment to Sec 5 means very little...............if you call someone a cuddly wuddly beary beary boo who takes offence to it and regards it as abusive and causes alarm, harrassment and distress you are still getting nicked.............the only difference is the removal of insulting which is going to make some big time lawyers a fortune arguing it at the Old Bailey but have very little effect on the great british public at large

You've just implied the public at large are cuddly wuddly beary beary boos.

Please, don't feel insulted by my , I'd be alarmed and distressed if you were.

Here you are Nippy. Don't give up the fight.

Neigh More Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

And...

"It is interesting to note that the objection the Police have to its removal is that it a ‘valuable tool’ to the maintenance of public order!"

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/01...till-criminal/

Originally Posted by Splat

You've just implied the public at large are cuddly wuddly beary beary boos.

Please, don't feel insulted by my , I'd be alarmed and distressed if you were.

Nope, I just implied the great British public will never have any contact with this law or the consequences of it and its change. The small minority who seek to try and exploit the change will probably still end up in hot water for something else as its not the only law that can be applied under sec 1 of "being a twat in a public place"

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

Here you are Nippy. Don't give up the fight.

Neigh More Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

And...

"It is interesting to note that the objection the Police have to its removal is that it a ‘valuable tool’ to the maintenance of public order!"

Public insults to be legalised but grossly offensive messages still criminal | UK Human Rights Blog

Once again I mostly agree with Anna Raccoon (not always though).

It seems to me, for those that think that abusive and insulting are the same, that KK's oft-quoted phrase that "Tories are vermin" is a good example of non-abusive but insulting words.

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

...One should never value the comments of people that one does not value. An excellent strategy which I commend to all those who join the professions.

I made pretty much the same point here: http://www.therevcounter.co.uk/general...ml#post1862555