Exactly. You cannot be convicted on someone else word, unless there is strong evidence to back their word up.
Absolutely, but with the available evidence (i.e none) it's fair to say that it wouldn't be possible.
Barely disguised implication of racism there. Good man/woman yourself Bubblypop.
Imagine, insinuating that someone who points out that it would be deeply unfair and impossible to advocate convicting people of hate crime without serious evidence, is racist or a racist enabler for doing so.
Or any crime. I wouldn't like to be the Garda who sends a book of evidence to the DPP that amounts to "The Dunne said Fandymo robbed his sheep, therefore we would like to prosecute".
It should be replaced with "If a crime is committed and there are no other witnesses or any other evidence, is it prosecutable?"
The answer is no.
Oh this is one of those posts where you change what a poster said completely and turn it round.
you don't know what evidence is available because you have not investigated.
Or the garda that sends a file to the DPP stating that girl A claims she was raped by boy B, a number of months ago.
as pointed out, an investigation would take place, should a complaint be made. Why are you assuming there would not be more evidence?
why are there posters here who are trying to say that we shouldn't prosecute people for hate crimes/racist incidents?
We can only go from what the OP has told us. He didn't state that she got his license place, or that there were witnesses. I'm going on the information at hand, not imaginary evidence that may or may not exist. And a Garda won't send a file to the DPP on someone's word alone. There would be a complaint, then evidence collected, if there was no evidence, no file would be sent to the DPP.
Who has said that we shouldn't prosecute people for hate crimes/racist incidents? Show me one poster, and the number of the post where they have said that.
I have no issue with, and would absolutely support people being prosecuted for racism or for hatred as long as both terms are watertight and not open to vastly different interpretations and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's incredibly important that the definition of the crimes are clear and consistent and are not open to manipulation by bad faith actors.
Yet somehow, the spindoctors on here manage to equate that with saying that racist/hate crimes shouldnt be prosecuted.
You only have to look at this this thread where accusations/implications of posters being racist could mean that innocent people could be hauled through courts based on spurious allegations.
Well clearly you’re not making any defence, what you ARE doing is proposing a scenario for which you have no evidence whatsoever, and expect that anyone should be compelled to take it seriously.
That’s precisely the reason why I know for a fact you don’t have a point, and also why I know for a fact that you’re accusing me of having accused you of defending the behaviour of the person in the opening post by way of attempting to turn the argument back on me when I haven’t accused you of anything.
The account given by the victim wouldn’t simply be discarded in any case, regardless of whether or not the investigating officers even managed to make contact with the person who you’re claiming could lie to them about having shouted racist abuse at a random stranger (and they could find themselves in a whole world of even bigger trouble if investigating officers turn up evidence which flat out contradicts their version of events!), but in ANY case, the proposed legislation is useful and on the face of it would apply in circumstances as described by the OP.
It’s precisely for circumstances like that which the legislation was proposed in the first place, not just as a means to address antisocial behaviour motivated by racism, but for a number of other motives too which drive antisocial behaviour such as that described by the OP.
It’s clear you’re not defending the behaviour, obviously, but it’s also clear that you’re attempting to undermine the purpose of the legislation by claiming it’s of no use in cases like the OP described, when you also believe the OP’s wife was the victim of a racially motivated attack, based upon no evidence whatsoever according to yourself, knowing that it’s not up to the victim to make that determination in any case…
I hope I’m giving a faithful summation of your position because you’re literally all over the shop, but your point comes down to “the legislation would be of no use in those circumstances”, even though it’s quite clear it would be useful, and then you’re off again with asking for definitions of this, that and the other, when these terms are quite clearly defined already in existing legislation.
I'm going on what would happen in an actual investigation as opposed to an imaginary non investigation.
There is no investigation, except in your imagination.
Now, any chance of answering the second part, since you a) made the claim and b) have said "Oh this is one of those posts where you change what a poster said completely and turn it round." I'm sure you wouldn't want to be seen as a massive hypocrite talking out of both sides of your mouth.
What second part
Plenty of posters putting down the possibilities of prosecutions.
Sure they'll never be any evidence etc etc
Ahh will you stop being so dramatic. There’s no requirement for any legislation to be so watertight, and anyone who would be facing charges would be entitled to legal representation in any case, an actual legal defence, not just makey-uppy nonsense that would undoubtedly only add to their clients existing credibility issues on foot of them being terrible bloody actors! 😂
That's not what you said though. Is it? Or was it just "one of those posts where you change what a poster said completely and turn it round."
You said "why are there posters here who are trying to say that we shouldn't prosecute people for hate crimes/racist incidents?"
Not one poster has said or 'tried' to say that we shouldn't prosecute people for hate crimes or racism. You have lied, misrepresented people and twisted words consistently. I'm delighted to have such a clear cut example to point out your barefaced hypocrisy.
It seems to be fine for you to talk about going on evidence and all the rest of it, but when bubblypop is giving an opinion based upon what WOULD actually happen in any investigation (procedures ‘n’ all), you’re making the point that there’s no investigation and accusing bubblypop of hypocrisy?
You actually HAVE changed what bubblypop said, but don’t appear to have any issue whatsoever with your own talking out of both ends.
Got him there nicely.
We are talking about the OP. I am going on what we know, as said by the OP. There is no evidence. He hasn’t even reported it.
We have gone heavily off topic.
I think most agree that racism will always exist.
Indeed there will always be racists lurking in the shadows. And it would seem apologists for them when they step into the light.
Robbie, can you please stop with the thinly disguised insults and accusations?
It's tiresome at this stage and drags the thread off topic. There have been no racist apologists on this thread and if you feel there has been, then come out and point out exactly who they are and what they said.
You will find that racism has been universally condemned on this thread and despite attempts to put words into others mouths or to misrepresent opinions, nobody has defended racism or racists.
It's like asking I suppose will the caste system ever end? It's not just a 'white' issue is what I'm saying!
He has to resort to that because he's unable to form a rational argument. Let's see what sly dig or twisting of words he'll use next.
Dunne can you stop with the personalalising every comment.
I have posted a comment on a discussion board.
In that comment I never mentioned you I never mentioned boards. So I'm unclear why you are taking this so personally.
Are you trying to imply there are no racists and racist apologists in society in general?
No one in this thread has said it is!
Regardless of the nationality or the level of Melanin in the skin of the person who commits racism it is wrong.
I'm not sure why you needed to the tell the OP that though. Does it not being a white only issue lessen the impact of the racism his wife suffered?
It's as clear as day what you are doing Robbie.
And to underline my point, you again pull a Cathy Newman and put words in my mouth despite my comment EXPLICITLY saying that there will always be racists.
It's ridiculous at this stage.
Can you stop trying to drag the thread off topic with these attempts at insulting me.
Seems to be a clear trend of posting for some evidenced in this and other such threads. Deflect, avoid direct questions for the most part, misrepresent, imply negatives in posters, then run to either insult, or more usually claims being insulted. All in an attempt to get a gotcha moment and/or censure of posters and opinions that don't agree with the narrative. I have found any narrative - and it matters not which narratives - that require tactical debating can't stand on the evidence or argument of their own two feet.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
It's certainly not a White only issue. Like I was saying earlier pretty much every society on the planet has and does have narraitives of belonging and not belonging and a heirarchy to those labels. The caste system of India a good example, honed over centuries to delineate that heirarchy. Skin colour even there plays a part. A study reported in the Times of India fleshed this out. The study "indicates that social structure defined by the caste system has a “profound influence on skin pigmentation"
Though caste is most commonly associated with Indian culture it's also been present in others like Nepal and the Philippines. Social stratification is or has been in play in most world cultures. And that's internally. The Other is stratified again.