Police investigate 'racist' Cool Runnings carnival float

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Four carnival revellers who "blacked up" to look like a Jamaican bobsleigh team are being investigated by police for racism.

The four men covered themselves in black bodypaint and Lycra bodysuits to dress up as characters from hit comedy Cool Runnings.

But Dinah Mulholland - who stood for Labour at this year's General Election - said their fancy dress choice was "unacceptable".
She said: "Utterly horrified to see this from Aberaeron Carnival today. How could this have been considered acceptable, or even legal, by the Carnival organisers?

Police confirmed they had received a racism complaint and are investigating.

A spokeswoman said: "Dyfed-Powys Police received a report of a perceived hate incident which occurred at Aberaeron carnival on Monday, August 28.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/30/police-investigate-racist-coolrunnings-carnival-float/


Hatred: noun
1.
the feeling of one who hates; intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility.

Now, was this really hateful?
It may surprise you to know that under UK law, there doesn't have to be an explicit racism or hateful act committed. It is entirely up to the 'victim' to perceive something as racist or hateful.
Yesterday it was Gone With The Wind.
Today it's Cool Runnings.
Tomorrow it'll be something else.

The multi million pound 'offence' industry claims another few scalps.
What kind of sad bastard complains about comedy characters?

Victor

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Now, was this really hateful?

It's immensely derogatory and harks back to the day when black actors wouldn't be employed, so white actors 'blacked up'.

The multi million pound 'offence' industry claims another few scalps.

I prefer to think of it as the 'stop being sh!t to people' industry.

It's interesting that you complain about people being offended, yet seem to be offended yourself.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Victor wrote: »

It's immensely derogatory and harks back to the day when black actors wouldn't be employed, so white actors 'blacked up'.

I prefer to think of it as the 'stop being sh!t to people' industry.

It's interesting that you complain about people being offended, yet seem to be offended yourself.

You are referring to minstrel shows, where white actors lampooned black people as being stupid. THAT was definitely derogatory. Dressing up as a character from a comedy movie is lighthearted fun. Oh wait, is Robert Downey Junior derogatory too?



I'm not offended by anything, just puzzled by these bizarre reactions. You seem to be a bit confused.

The_Valeyard

Dressing up as minstrels and the black cotton workers would be racist. This is just lads dressing up as a famous bobsleigh team, it's not putting them down or derogatory.

If this is racist then black people cant white up for costumes or is it only one way?

major bill

I googled Dinah Mulholland and she strikes me as a woman that hasn't got a slap of the mickey in years. Offended because she feels it is her duty to be offended.

Feck off

suicide_circus

Cracker ass crackers

Skylinehead

Another wonderful thread I see

Are Am Eye

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VONoYWxSAsI

Ralf and Florian

Victor wrote: »

It's immensely derogatory and harks back to the day when black actors wouldn't be employed, so white actors 'blacked up'.

I prefer to think of it as the 'stop being sh!t to people' industry.

It's interesting that you complain about people being offended, yet seem to be offended yourself.

They're not actors FFS. And who were they being sh!t to? Are you sure that any black people even saw it?

SEPT 23 1989

Was the attention seeking twat really "horrified" at what she saw?

Captain Obvious

What a load of nonsense. I see Ed Skrein has withdrawn from a role in the new Hell Boy after a massive backlash when he was cast as an originally asian character, despite the fact an Irish red head is being played by a black actor. In yet another "victory" for anti racists, an annual screening of Gone With the Wind has been stopped as it has been deemed "insensitive". Racism finally on the rocks it seems.

That Mulholland yoke seems like a thoroughly obnoxious fúcker. A creep and an abject bully always looking for some right-on high horse to get on and go full retard with the emotions by accusing some decent person of something unsavoury. Ugh.

Too many of these people in politics.

Senna

Victor wrote: »

I prefer to think of it as the 'stop being sh!t to people' industry.
.

Yeah and Islamic extremists are concerned about the earth's overpopulation and have found a way to solve it.

This outrage crowd seek attention, they could fight for minority family's being put out of homes all over the UK. But no, 4 guys in a parade without a racist thought in the head are the easy targets.

DesperateDan

There has to be a line somewhere. Obviously I'm sure they are not being intentionally derogatory, but their ignorance gives others an excuse to be. 50 years ago we all collectively worked out that dressing up as a black man should probably be stopped by everyone because the vast majority of people were doing it at racist shows for laughs.

Now that a bit of time has passed we are deeming it okay? It's simply idiotic and unfunny.

If I decide to black myself up, sure why don't I use shoe polish instead of brown paint, slap on some lipstick and sing a jaunty song about eating water melon and being a cotton picking n***** in rags with a Jamaican accent. Most would agree that's racist but how do you define which of those components qualify as derogatory?

The answer is you ban it all because you are a tw*t for trivializing any of it in the first place.

cml387

Prepare to be OUTRAGED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkiix0aveRk

pickarooney

DesperateDan wrote: »

There has to be a line somewhere. Obviously I'm sure they are not being intentionally derogatory, but their ignorance gives others an excuse to be. 50 years ago we all collectively worked out that dressing up as a black man should probably be stopped by everyone because the vast majority of people were doing it at racist shows for laughs.

Now that a bit of time has passed we are deeming it okay? It's simply idiotic and unfunny.

If I decide to black myself up, sure why don't I use shoe polish instead of brown paint, slap on some lipstick and sing a jaunty song about eating water melon and being a cotton picking n***** in rags with a Jamaican accent. Most would agree that's racist but how do you define which of those components qualify as derogatory?

The answer is you ban it all because you are a tw*t for trivializing any of it in the first place.

If an Englishman dresses up as Conor McGregor, is that racist? Like, he puts on the accent and everything.

Captain Obvious

pickarooney wrote: »

If an Englishman dresses up as Conor McGregor, is that racist? Like, he puts on the accent and everything.

St Patrick's Day should really be name cultural appropriation and racist day too.

Junkyard Tom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdSYhwLENvM

Ulysses Gaze

major bill wrote: »

I googled Dinah Mulholland and she strikes me as a woman that hasn't got a slap of the mickey in years. Offended because she feels it is her duty to be offended.

Feck off

A Labour MP as well.

Wish she was as vocal about the rampant Anti-Semitism in her party. And particularly Naz Shah and her actions.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

It may surprise you to know that under UK law, there doesn't have to be an explicit racism or hateful act committed. It is entirely up to the 'victim' to perceive something as racist or hateful.

But...does there not have to be a crime?

I thought that the perception issue arose where there was a crime committed, such as an assault or hate speech...and only after that is there a consideration of whether it was aggravated by a racial element.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

What a fcuking total waste of resources. There's nothing to investigate here. Blackface is not racist, but there are plenty of people who are just looking for any excuse to be offended and outraged.

Arsemageddon

Cool Runnings was a shyte film. The fact that anyone could think it would be great crack to dress up as the characters from it would tend to indicate that they are morons.

Venom

Deleted User wrote: »

But...does there not have to be a crime?

I thought that the perception issue arose where there was a crime committed, such as an assault or hate speech...and only after that is there a consideration of whether it was aggravated by a racial element.

It leading the UK to a very scary place, when it's up to the "victim" and how they perceive something as being a hate crime or not and not the law itself.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

DesperateDan wrote: »

There has to be a line somewhere. Obviously I'm sure they are not being intentionally derogatory, but their ignorance gives others an excuse to be. 50 years ago we all collectively worked out that dressing up as a black man should probably be stopped by everyone because the vast majority of people were doing it at racist shows for laughs.

When did we collectively decide to stop dressing up as black people? Was there a UN committee meeting? How many votes were passed? I don't recall that one. Did you ask black people first, or did you decide what was best for all brown people on their behalf? Because there's a word for people who do things like that.

Now that a bit of time has passed we are deeming it okay? It's simply idiotic and unfunny. If I decide to black myself up, sure why don't I use shoe polish instead of brown paint, slap on some lipstick and sing a jaunty song about eating water melon and being a cotton picking n***** in rags with a Jamaican accent. Most would agree that's racist but how do you define which of those components qualify as derogatory?

Nice strawman. Nobody is deeming minstrel shows okay, as you very well know.

Deleted User wrote: »

But...does there not have to be a crime?

I thought that the perception issue arose where there was a crime committed, such as an assault or hate speech...and only after that is there a consideration of whether it was aggravated by a racial element.

Incredibly, the law allows for 'perceived' crime. So there may be a perceived incident. For example, you are looking at someone across the way on the train. If they perceive this to be based on their personal identity, then you are in a world of trouble.
This is directly from the Crown Prosecution Services guidelines:

6.2 A Hate Incident is defined as:
“Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal
offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other
person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”

6.3 A Hate Crime is defined as:
“Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence,
perceived by the victim or any other person, as being
motivated by prejudice or hate.”

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/htc_policy.pdf

Don't forget the ludicrous decision by Nottingham Police to label wolf whistling as a hate crime. As in, up there with the Holocaust, lynchings, and ethnic cleansing:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/this-political-correctness-gone-mad-11615155

And then there was the guy who was charged with hate crimes for teaching his dog to do a Nazi salute. Stupid? Yes. Amusing? Mildly. Hate crime? It's a dog, for fcuk sake: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

But...does there not have to be a crime?

I thought that the perception issue arose where there was a crime committed, such as an assault or hate speech...and only after that is there a consideration of whether it was aggravated by a racial element.

You are correct, the OP is not.

Somebody, such as the victim, might believe that a particular crime is motivated by hostility or prejudice, and they are free to report it to the police as such.

But it must still be proven to the satisfaction of the court that the crime itself was motivated by hostility or prejudice. The perception of the victim alone, is not enough.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Incredibly, the law allows for 'perceived' crime. So there may be a perceived incident.

I didn't think of it like that, that the incident may be perceived only.

I understand that the incident, the assault, the speech, the act etc. has to be established anyway. It cannot simply be perceived. It is aggravated if there is a hate element, and that may be linked to the perception of the victim or target of the crime.

Venom

osarusan wrote: »

You are correct, the OP is not.

Somebody, such as the victim, might believe that a particular crime is motivated by hostility or prejudice, and they are free to report it to the police as such.

But it must still be proven to the satisfaction of the court that the crime itself was motivated by hostility or prejudice. The perception of the victim alone, is not enough.

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't think of it like that, that the incident may be perceived only.

I understand that the incident, the assault, the speech, the act etc. has to be established anyway. It cannot simply be perceived. It is aggravated if there is a hate element, and that may be linked to the perception of the victim or target of the crime.

It's all well and good saying its up to the satisfaction of the courts but that won't stop people's good name getting dragged through the mud by the media, all because of the perception of some looking to be offended type.

osarusan

Venom wrote: »

It's all well and good saying its up to the satisfaction of the courts but that won't stop people's good name getting dragged through the mud by the media, all because of the perception of some looking to be offended type.

You are correct - people's good names can get baselessly dragged through the mud.

I am just pointing out that the level of proof needed for conviction of a hate crime is more than just the perception of the victim.

Venom

Venom wrote: »

It's all well and good saying its up to the satisfaction of the courts but that won't stop people's good name getting dragged through the mud by the media, all because of the perception of some looking to be offended type.

Have there been many prosecutions for "blacking up"?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

osarusan wrote: »

You are correct, the OP is not.

Somebody, such as the victim, might believe that a particular crime is motivated by hostility or prejudice, and they are free to report it to the police as such.

But it must still be proven to the satisfaction of the court that the crime itself was motivated by hostility or prejudice. The perception of the victim alone, is not enough.

Just to clarify, the mere suggestion of a perceived hate crime is enough for someone to be charged. But the case is then brought before the courts where it is decided by the judiciary. I wasn't trying to suggest that a perceived hate crime is enough to have someone convicted there and then.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Just to clarify, the mere suggestion of a perceived hate crime is enough for someone to be charged. But the case is then brought before the courts where it is decided by the judiciary. I wasn't trying to suggest that a perceived hate crime is enough to have someone convicted there and then.

I presume the same standards exist as for the prosecution of any crime.

As in, the police have to be sure there's a prima facie case, and a prospect of a successful outcome.

Again, my understanding is that the hate element is tacked on if that exists and the victim also complains of a hate element. In that case, the police treat it as a hate crime and the prosecution will look for an increased penalty...but there is no lowering of the standard of evidence to establish the crime.

It's a bit like using victim impact statements to assist in sentencing. It's the court listening to the perception of the victim.