RugbyRebels

The biggest problem is that too many voters didn't see any downside. Add to that a healthy dose of anti intellectualism and you u have a recipe for a protest vote that has caused a major problem.

Scary

There was a sharp increase in the number of racially or religiously aggravated crimes recorded by police in England and Wales following the EU referendum.

In July 2016, police recorded a 41 per cent increase compared to the same month the year before, according to a Home Office report.

These official figures appear to correlate with previous reports of a rise in post-Brexit hate crime.

But in the fortnight immediately after the poll, the number climbed by almost half to 2,241.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 58866.html

I have UK citizenship myself, as a matter of fact, due to my birth in Hong Kong. But I can't get Chinese citizenship, which is a bit ironic, when you think about it. I also have NZ citizenship since I grew up in that country and got my first passport there.

Now this is a little ironic...

Applications for both Irish citizenship and passports have soared since Britain voted to leave the European Union in June, as thousands of people seek to mitigate the effects of Brexit on their lives, government figures show.

In all, more than 37,000 people in the UK and Northern Ireland applied for Irish passports in the three months after 23 June – 83% more than for the same months in 2015.

Additionally, in the three months following the referendum, the Irish embassy in London received more than 2,800 applications for citizenship from people on the Foreign Births Register (individuals with Irish ancestry). This compares with 235 applications in the first three months of 2016. In July alone, more cases were handled than in the whole of 2015.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... SApp_Other

rowan wrote:Scary

There was a sharp increase in the number of racially or religiously aggravated crimes recorded by police in England and Wales following the EU referendum.

In July 2016, police recorded a 41 per cent increase compared to the same month the year before, according to a Home Office report.

These official figures appear to correlate with previous reports of a rise in post-Brexit hate crime.

But in the fortnight immediately after the poll, the number climbed by almost half to 2,241.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 58866.html

I have UK citizenship myself, as a matter of fact, due to my birth in Hong Kong. But I can't get Chinese citizenship, which is a bit ironic, when you think about it. I also have NZ citizenship since I grew up in that country and got my first passport there.

That increase would also include complaints about Irish jokes, calling someone Jock or Taffy etc.

belgarion wrote:

rowan wrote:Scary

There was a sharp increase in the number of racially or religiously aggravated crimes recorded by police in England and Wales following the EU referendum.

In July 2016, police recorded a 41 per cent increase compared to the same month the year before, according to a Home Office report.

These official figures appear to correlate with previous reports of a rise in post-Brexit hate crime.

But in the fortnight immediately after the poll, the number climbed by almost half to 2,241.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 58866.html

I have UK citizenship myself, as a matter of fact, due to my birth in Hong Kong. But I can't get Chinese citizenship, which is a bit ironic, when you think about it. I also have NZ citizenship since I grew up in that country and got my first passport there.

That increase would also include complaints about Irish jokes, calling someone Jock or Taffy etc.

That seems unlikely. It seems unlikely that more people would be being called Jock or Taffy post-Brexit vote, let alone calling the police about it - leaving aside for a moment that I don't believe that would be included as a hate crime. As for Irish "jokes" there seems no particular reason that there would be an increase in reporting of this hilarious trope unless there was more of it, and remember that telling Irish jokes is not generally a crime.

It depends on the manner it is said. If its said with the same malice as a slur against someone's skin colour it should be. Assuming of course that that itself is counted as a hate crime.

OptimisticJock wrote:It depends on the manner it is said. If its said with the same malice as a slur against someone's skin colour it should be. Assuming of course that that itself is counted as a hate crime.

Exactly correct.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:It depends on the manner it is said. If its said with the same malice as a slur against someone's skin colour it should be. Assuming of course that that itself is counted as a hate crime.

Exactly correct.

Perhaps not post Brexit per say but I bet more jocks are getting stick from idiots these days.

OptimisticJock wrote:It depends on the manner it is said. If its said with the same malice as a slur against someone's skin colour it should be. Assuming of course that that itself is counted as a hate crime.

Which AFAIK if the alleged victim reports it to the police as such that is how it will be recorded.

Definition of a hate crime.

'The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.

They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:

disability
race
religion
transgender identity
sexual orientation.

This means that if you believe something is a hate incident it should be recorded as such by the person you are reporting it to. All police forces record hate incidents based on these five personal characteristics.'

Which, as shown by the highlighted section, if OJ reported to the police that someone called him a 'pessimistic Jock' as a hate
crime that is how it would have to be recorded

belgarion wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:It depends on the manner it is said. If its said with the same malice as a slur against someone's skin colour it should be. Assuming of course that that itself is counted as a hate crime.

Which AFAIK if the alleged victim reports it to the police as such that is how it will be recorded.

Definition of a hate crime.

'The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.

They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:

disability
race
religion
transgender identity
sexual orientation.

This means that if you believe something is a hate incident it should be recorded as such by the person you are reporting it to. All police forces record hate incidents based on these five personal characteristics.'

Which, as shown by the highlighted section, if OJ reported to the police that someone called him a 'pessimistic Jock' as a hate
crime that is how it would have to be recorded

You were doing so well until the end when you decided that people could self define a crime. They can't. The recorded crime figures record crimes, not incidents. So people can define a hate incident and report it but the article makes plain that this is an increase in religious and racially aggravated crimes recorded in which neither the crime element nor the racial aggravation can be self defined.

Not me saying it Eug, it's the CPS & Police as it says in the 1st sentence of the definition

belgarion wrote:Not me saying it Eug, it's the CPS & Police as it says in the 1st sentence of the definition

Read what I wrote, what you wrote and the article again. You are eliding "incident" with "crime".

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

belgarion wrote:Not me saying it Eug, it's the CPS & Police as it says in the 1st sentence of the definition

Read what I wrote, what you wrote and the article again. You are eliding "incident" with "crime".

You're quite right Eug, sorry. In my defence....Nahh sorry no defence just me being a bit of an idiot
& not reading what you & I actually wrote

belgarion wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

belgarion wrote:Not me saying it Eug, it's the CPS & Police as it says in the 1st sentence of the definition

Read what I wrote, what you wrote and the article again. You are eliding "incident" with "crime".

You're quite right Eug, sorry. In my defence....Nahh sorry no defence just me being a bit of an idiot
& not reading what you & I actually wrote

No worries. Kudos to you for coming back and saying you were wrong.

A nice line from Boris about Britain making a titanic success of Brexit. I'm going to assume being Boris he realised what he was saying and just wanted the attention.

So the Court ( of England & Wales) has ruled that only parliament can trigger Article 50.

That's a game changer.

Lizard wrote:So the Court( of England & Wales) has ruled that only parliament can trigger Article 50.

That's a game changer.

It's OK, in this instance I don't think too many Scots or Northern Irish will object.

Brexit really is the gift that keeps on giving. Please god let them scrap the triggering of article 50 so I can masturbate to the whinging brexiters on FB.

The questions now are whether the Supreme Court will find a way to modify the principle that the Royal Prerogative cannot be invoked to alter domestic law, or a way to pretend that invoking Art 50 will or alter domestic law.

If not, then will parliament pass a simple law saying "the PM and/or Secretary of State have the authority to trigger Art 50" or want to have a say on all the details before triggering.

Fun

Lizard wrote:The questions now are whether the Supreme Court will find a way to modify the principle that the Royal Prerogative cannot be invoked to alter domestic law, or a way to pretend that invoking Art 50 will or alter domestic law.

If not, then will parliament pass a simple law saying "the PM and/or Secretary of State have the authority to trigger Art 50" or want to have a say on all the details before triggering.

Fun

I think we know the answer to that

But how can Parliament have a say on all the details when negotiations can't start until A 50 is triggered? They could mandate a starting position, and veto any "unacceptable" endpoint, but then the 2 years will expire and you just get the hardest Brexit of them all.

Gosh, perhaps they should have asked this "parliamentary sovereignty" question before the referendum?

Lizard wrote:But how can Parliament have a say on all the details when negotiations can't start until A 50 is triggered? They could mandate a starting position, and veto any "unacceptable" endpoint, but then the 2 years will expire and you just get the hardest Brexit of them all.

Gosh, perhaps they should have asked this "parliamentary sovereignty" question before the referendum?

According to Lord Kerr, apparently the author of Article 50, the UK (what then remains of it) could simply, after 1.99 years of negotiation, withdraw the Article 50 notification and remain within the EU.

Wouldn't that be nice...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-sco ... s-37852628

Delighted as a remain voter but the bottom feeders of society have crashed the sterling for a giggle basically.

Lizard wrote:So the Court ( of England & Wales) has ruled that only parliament can trigger Article 50.

That's a game changer.

Only in the sense that the picture of what we'll try to attain will be shaped (and compromised) by Parliament rather than just by the PM. We did still vote to leave, no matter how moronic that is, and they'll get enough votes in Parliament from those who want to leave and those who want to respect the referendum outcome even if they happen not to like it.