Utopia Talk / Politics / UK: Faggots

Forwyn rank	Sat Nov 22 06:04:30 http://www...cted-hate-crime-text-attacker/ A mom-of-four who branded her alleged attacker a “f****t” in a rant to her pal has been convicted of a hate crime. Elizabeth Kinney sent a “barrage” of messages to describe how a mutual male acquaintance had attacked her. The care home worker, 34, also shared pictures of her injuries from the alleged assault, which resulted her being admitted to hospital. But she was reported to police over use of the word “f****t” to describe the alleged attacker and was charged with malicious communications offences. Kinney has now pleaded guilty to causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages. She insisted her words were a ”thoughtless rant” and that she was not attacking anyone’s sexuality but JPs said her remark was ”homophobic”. Kinney was handed a 12 month community order with requirements that she undertakes 72 hours of unpaid work and 10 rehabilitation activity days. She was also made to pay £364 in costs and surcharge at Sefton Magistrates’ Court. None of the messages or context were fully read out in court and it is believed nobody has been arrested or charged over the assault. Jacqueline Whiting, prosecuting, said: “The defendant and the victim in this matter had been friends but had a falling out which resulted in an incident on the 27 October 2024 whereby abusive and homophobic text messages were sent to the victim causing her alarm and distress. ”The Crown place this offence in the highest Category of its type due to the effect related to sexual orientation and the greater harm because it had moderate impact.” In mitigation, Kinney’s lawyer Simon Simmonds said the mum was “simply upset” about what happened to her. He added: “It all sounds ridiculous and childish and she is quite embarrassed to read them in the cold light of day. “Though she used the words ‘f****t’ they were not being used against a person’s sexuality. They were simply words used without any thought to get it off her chest. “There was no planning, no targeting, just a response to something that has happened to her – getting something off her chest.” Mr Simmonds also told the court Kinney has worked in a care home for 16 years and dreams of being a nurse. Sentencing, JP Robert Waugh said: “The sentence has been uplifted because of the homophobic content. “We accept that it may have been made in a rant but nevertheless they were made.”
Pillz rank	Sat Nov 22 08:02:34 Calling people faggots empowers Putin. Once the hate speech meter is full, Putin can unleash his next invasion. That's why the UK must be fascists
Seb rank	Sat Nov 22 10:48:35 So, Elizabeth Kinney is sending loads of offensive texts to a female ex-friend insulting a male mutual acquaintance who is alleged to have assaulted her. The assault doesn't seem connected with the victim so something of a red-herring. I think a slightly different story emerges here: it's straight up harassment by the perpetrator of the friend she's fallen out with. And yes use of hate speech is an aggravating factor, but the issue isn't that she said "faggot" in a text - the overall intent of the message absent that still needs to have been to cause distress and alarm so cannot have simply been "getting things off her chest" in the same way punching someone in their face can't be described as such either. Generally, when you get to the details of these cases you find that the judgement is pretty reasonable. Journalists like to craft this kind of "worlds gone mad" story for rage bait. You guys love em. Click them, share them etc. Basically, don't be a dick and go out of your way to harass people you don't like. How hard is this?
Forwyn rank	Sat Nov 22 17:24:30 You know you can block phone numbers, right faggot?
Pillz rank	Sat Nov 22 18:02:20 Seb hides behind his wife when migrants look at him
Seb rank	Sat Nov 22 23:08:13 Forwyn: And?
Seb rank	Sat Nov 22 23:09:29 If a burglar breaks into your house by smashing your windows, they don't get off scott free because you could have put in iron security bars.
Pillz rank	Sat Nov 22 23:55:10 Seb 'won' a lot participation trophies as a kid
Forwyn rank	Sun Nov 23 00:05:02 Yes, calling someone a faggot to someone else via text message is exactly the same as property damage and burglary. Thank you for clarifying Seb
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 14:38:40 Forwyn: Nobody said it was. The same principle holds though. The crime is about the action and the intent; not be the victims failure to take preventive measures.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 14:40:04 By the way, you can tell it's not the same because if you were caught burgling the house, you wouldn't get a 10 day rehabilitation course and community service; you'd go to prison.
Pillz rank	Sun Nov 23 16:05:51 Fag
Fat Fag rank	Sun Nov 23 16:15:28 Fag
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 16:24:48 Yeah don't think this can be deemed harassment though.
Pillz rank	Sun Nov 23 16:27:17 Setting the bar a little high for yourself with the 't' word, seb
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 16:58:02 Ah bless, you try so hard.
Forwyn rank	Sun Nov 23 17:41:50 "don't think this can be deemed harassment" Neither is a single multi-message rant. You have literally zero evidence that this spanned beyond a few hours. You are inventing facts to cuck for your police state.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 17:53:39 Forwyn: Do you know it's single multi-message rant? "You have literally zero evidence" A series of separate messages over the course of the evening would be considered harassment. There's nothing in law that says that they have to be separated by some arbitrary period of time to count, though I suspect the judge would consider a number sent in close succession a single message. The article describes a "barrage" so there's definitely multiple messages. The court has the evidence. Does the article *say* for certain it was only a single message, or multi message rant as opposed to part of a wider pattern? Or is the journalist picking a single element related to the use of the word faggot and letting you make assumptions? Journalists now largely get paid based on the traffic the article gets, which is a powerful incentive to provide misleading (if not outright lying) but rage baiting articles. Most times I look into these things, I find that's the case and you fell for it.
Forwyn rank	Sun Nov 23 17:59:14 a: "an incident on the 27 October 2024 whereby abusive and homophobic text messages were sent to the victim" There is no evidence the rant extended beyond the day. b: This was not prosecuted as a case of harassment, it was prosecuted under s.127. The magistrate specifically referenced the use of faggot for the hate-crime uplift. This would not have been prosecuted without it.
Forwyn rank	Sun Nov 23 18:00:28 Courts: "You used a slur, hence this is malicious communications" Perp: "Sorry I used a slur, it was heat of the moment" Seb: "This was a campaign of harassment"
Pillz rank	Sun Nov 23 18:13:52 "Ah bless, you try so hard." Seb's wife's boyfriend to seb when seb's pay comes in
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 19:05:45 Forwyn: This may refer only to the rant where "faggot" was used; you don't know from this that there definitely weren't other messages that would strengthen the harassment claim but were not homophobic in nature. Yes, there's an offence under section 127 of the communications act, but that's specifically created to address forms of harassment, particularly using telecommunications. It's not the only law that criminalises harassment (in the same way there are different acts that criminalise different activities associated with terrorism, for example, rather than a single criminal figure "terrorism"). "The magistrate specifically referenced the use of faggot for the hate-crime uplift" yes, that's from the Equalities Act 2010 which also criminalises harassment.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 19:11:41 Actually, that's in civil cases. For criminal cases it would be the criminal justice act 2003.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 19:16:17 The uplift refers to the sentencing not the charge by the way. It would still be an offence under the communications act to send a message. Generally the threshold is quite high for the CPS to bring charges, so that's generally suggestive that there's quite a bit the report is leaving out to focus on the "faggot" bit to make the rage bait story. A bit like the reporting around that woman who, it turned out, had actually been tweeting to encourage protestors to burn down a specific hotel they were currently attacking, specifically with the refugees inside. This is often the case: you look into it and discover the media report left out quite a lot of pertinent detail.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 19:23:42 https://se...network-offences-revised-2017/ So here uplifted from category 3 (Class A-C fine) to category 2 (community service, low) due to using the word faggot. From this we can infer whatever else was in this barrage of messages, it was sufficiently offensive or alarming to bring a charge under the communications act. Quite likely it probably included - albeit rhetorical - threats. You may well be right that it was considered a single instance rather than repeated and not prosecutable under the prevention of harassment act 1997 which would be a higher sentence.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 19:29:47 https://ww...idance/communications-offences and here's the prosecution guidelines. Note the entire section discussing the need to demonstrate offense is "grossly" offensive, not merely shocking or in bad taste; and in the view of the general standards of society not just that the victim found it so; and associated case law.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 19:30:46 I suspect the messages were menacing.
Forwyn rank	Mon Nov 24 02:27:24 "For criminal cases it would be the criminal justice act 2003." s.66 Sentencing 2020 ":there's quite a bit the report is leaving out to focus on the "faggot" bit to make the rage bait story." Both the prosecutor and the judge focused on the slur. I think there is zero evidence the messages were menacing. More likely the girl was bruised up in the hospital and thought her friend wouldn't go full leftist and run to the police because of a mean word. "Jacqueline Whiting, prosecuting, said: 'The defendant and the victim in this matter had been friends but had a falling out which resulted in an incident on the October 27, 2024 whereby abusive and homophobic text messages were sent to the victim causing her alarm and distress. 'The Crown place this offence in the highest category of its type due to the effect related to sexual orientation and the greater harm because it had moderate impact.'" "Sentencing her, JP Robert Waugh said: 'The sentence has been uplifted because of the homophobic content. 'We accept that it may have been made in a rant but nevertheless they were made.'"
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: