| Chelsea Tossers 09:05 - Jan 18 with 6913 views | WokingR |
Of all the vile things that club have done, caused or been connected with and have sat back and ignored or taken no action on they are apparently now so offended by the term 'rent boy' that they have been to court to have it registered as a homophobic slur to stop those nasty boys singing it to their players.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
|  | | |  |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:35 - Jan 18 with 1610 views | stevec |
| Chelsea Tossers on 10:06 - Jan 18 by gazza1 |
We would never do anything like that....terrible!!! |
QPR FC
From the .. erm, er, whatsitcalled..
It’s only a matter of time. |  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:42 - Jan 18 with 1598 views | Match82 |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:03 - Jan 18 by BklynRanger |
This may be one of those where it's possible, sadly, for both conditions to be true. The Scum can still be scum but, in this case, correct.
But playing devils advocate a bit, is the term 'rent boy' definitively hate speech? Basically calling someone a male prostitute isn't necessarily singling out the gay aspect of it - it may hark back more to some of those stories/rumours from prior decades involving rent boys, head hunters and the like.
Still, yeah, I know it can be very easily seen as homophobia (either directly or indirectly). Not disputing that, but think we do need to have a good think about where we're going with some of these perfectly good intentions. |
I assume that it's less about the literal history of the term and more about the historical context in which it's been used |  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:48 - Jan 18 with 1580 views | QPR_John |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:26 - Jan 18 by ed_83 |
Here are the CPS' own policies on reporting and prosecuting hate crimes:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-i
And here's the specific bit which most seems relevant:
"The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim *or any other person*, (my emphasis) to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Hope this clarifies why shouting "rent boy" at someone falls within that definition, in relation to offences covered elsewhere (football supporters act 1991 & CJA 1994 from memory)
The idea that societal harms caused to minority groups go no further than "violence, intimidation and unequal treatment" is absurd in and of itself, but also misses the point that calling someone a "rent boy" - which is, let's be clear, an attempt to disparage that person by painting them as gay, feminised, sexualised or subjugated - is by its very nature an act of intimidation.
Your closing point about scepticism towards the criminal justice system & support for anti-hate crime legislation makes no sense. The two are entirely consistent with other: it's precisely *because* so much of our social fabric still involves disdain for minority groups that specific protections are required for them to live on the same footing as everyone else. |
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim *or any other person*
Can you clarify that as it seems from that definition there is no defence against being accused of a hate crime. [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 13:48]
|  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 14:46 - Jan 18 with 1483 views | ed_83 |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:48 - Jan 18 by QPR_John |
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim *or any other person*
Can you clarify that as it seems from that definition there is no defence against being accused of a hate crime. [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 13:48]
|
I'm not the CPS, but clearly it's possible to mount a defence against charges of this nature. John Terry was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence, which presumably would have counted as a hate crime under these guidelines, but his successful defence was that he only said the words "fcking black cnt" in the course of asking Anton Ferdinand what he thought he'd heard.
From the Public Order Act 1986, which I *think* was what Terry would have been charged under:
"It is a defence for the accused to prove–
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable." | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 15:02 - Jan 18 with 1446 views | QPR_John |
| Chelsea Tossers on 14:46 - Jan 18 by ed_83 |
I'm not the CPS, but clearly it's possible to mount a defence against charges of this nature. John Terry was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence, which presumably would have counted as a hate crime under these guidelines, but his successful defence was that he only said the words "fcking black cnt" in the course of asking Anton Ferdinand what he thought he'd heard.
From the Public Order Act 1986, which I *think* was what Terry would have been charged under:
"It is a defence for the accused to prove–
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable." |
What you say does not apply in the situation I am worried about. If A mugs B then clearly a crime has been committed. However if B perceived the attack was motivated by racism or homophobia etc then the crime automatically becomes a hate crime without any other proof being required which as I understand it attracts a harsher punishment. Person A has no defence against that perception. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 15:17 - Jan 18 with 1433 views | ngbqpr |
Offensive chant.
$hit Chant. |  |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 15:23 - Jan 18 with 1418 views | kensalriser |
So many excellent examples of sophistry here. |  |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 17:14 - Jan 18 with 1297 views | ed_83 |
| Chelsea Tossers on 15:02 - Jan 18 by QPR_John |
What you say does not apply in the situation I am worried about. If A mugs B then clearly a crime has been committed. However if B perceived the attack was motivated by racism or homophobia etc then the crime automatically becomes a hate crime without any other proof being required which as I understand it attracts a harsher punishment. Person A has no defence against that perception. |
I think you're confusing the decision-making processes of the CPS with the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole. Just because the CPS might classify something as a hate crime doesn't mean that further proof isn't required to then charge or convict someone, or that whoever's charged isn't then able to mount a defence against whatever the CPS has chosen to charge them with.
Of course, another potential solution to the weirdly specific situation you're worried about would simply be to not mug anyone, regardless of their race. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Chelsea Tossers on 18:34 - Jan 18 with 1215 views | QPR_John |
| Chelsea Tossers on 17:14 - Jan 18 by ed_83 |
I think you're confusing the decision-making processes of the CPS with the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole. Just because the CPS might classify something as a hate crime doesn't mean that further proof isn't required to then charge or convict someone, or that whoever's charged isn't then able to mount a defence against whatever the CPS has chosen to charge them with.
Of course, another potential solution to the weirdly specific situation you're worried about would simply be to not mug anyone, regardless of their race. |
It was simply an example for illustration. But you knew that. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 01:08 - Jan 19 with 1061 views | johncharles |
The OP was about the hypocrisy of Chelsea trying to take the moral high ground but seems to have got lost along the way. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 07:40 - Jan 19 with 987 views | traininvain |
While we’re on the subject of Chelsea dossers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
Tuchel is fast becoming one of my most disliked Chelsea managers with his constant bitching and moaning. The irony is that his excuses about tiredness etc seem to be giving his players the perfect excuse to put in poor performances! |  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 07:52 - Jan 19 with 971 views | PunteR |
So we're all agreed...Chelsea are tossers!?
Haven't read the thread properly. Something about rent boys..? |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 15:28 - Jan 19 with 809 views | francisbowles |
The third international break of the season follows this weekend's round of fixtures.
"We give two days off because we have four days between matches," continued the German. "Then we'll use the international break to recharge our batteries. We will give the players one week off, absolutely."
Deluded as well! | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 15:34 - Jan 19 with 795 views | francisbowles |
| Chelsea Tossers on 14:46 - Jan 18 by ed_83 |
I'm not the CPS, but clearly it's possible to mount a defence against charges of this nature. John Terry was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence, which presumably would have counted as a hate crime under these guidelines, but his successful defence was that he only said the words "fcking black cnt" in the course of asking Anton Ferdinand what he thought he'd heard.
From the Public Order Act 1986, which I *think* was what Terry would have been charged under:
"It is a defence for the accused to prove–
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable." |
Is that a direct quote from the law? My understanding has always been that it is for the prosecution to prove. The defence has to build a reasonable case to be doubt, it doesn't have to prove anything. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 15:38 - Jan 19 with 787 views | themodfather |
what gets me is those chelsea pee pits using the TFL roundel on one of their permanent flags, it is against trademark as i doubt tfl would give permission for it! and their "pride of london" one..."SHAME of london" yes but i do not have any pride in them and who would? based on what? | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 16:50 - Jan 19 with 737 views | Wegerles_Stairs |
What if fans accused them of being (non-gender specific) prostitutes? Is that verboten? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
