March 22, 2018
A photograph from a time when the British police were still taken seriously.
In-between attending LGBTP pride parades, arresting white men for possessing unlicensed silverware, performing illegal weapons sweeps in bike shops and monitoring social media for videos of Hitler-worshiping puppers, the London Met police took the time to update their website this month.
That update included the addition of the following paragraphs:
For some reason, a large number of Internet users – probably those racists on 4chan – thought that this Orwellian doublespeak was really funny, and hurt the feelings of the Met by mocking it online.
Well I hope that those insensitive faggots are satisfied, because the police have been forced to edit the description just to halt the barrage of mean words.
People can be “charged” with an “offence” if their actions are within the law but their “reasons for doing it” are perceived as illegal hate by others, London police have said, before withdrawing the claim.
Social media users began drawing attention to the Metropolitan force’s new, and highly unusual, definition of a ‘hate crime’ on the 16th of this month. It remained like that until the 18th, according to Google cache, before the police edited it again on Monday.
The definition did not match that given by the College of Policing or Crown Prosecution Service, and critics online claimed it could be read as a threat against “thought crimes”.
The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed last year that a “hate incident” only needs to be “perceived” with “no evidence needed”, and many UK forces include “dislike” and “unfriendliness” as evidence of a hate crime.
The Met’s confusion about the definition of a hate crime comes after they were successfully sued earlier this month, and forced to pay out £2,750, for falsely accusing a man of hate on Twitter and harassing him and his family.
The edited description. I’ve highlighted the best part.
Strewth m80s. I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds the new description even worse. I mean, at least the previous one merely stated that it’s possible to charge thought criminals with an offense. This new description states, quite unambiguously, that evidence of “hate” isn’t needed at all.
This sort of shit is exactly what you’d expect O’Brien to say to Winston in the Ministry of Love while he’s torturing him into accepting Big Brother (or, in this case, Big Jew):
“Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related.”
Of course, these laws will be abused by the legion of colorfuls that continue to enrich the UK with their machetes, bombs and penises. If a policeman catches a Moslem sodomizing a 10-year-old white girl in a London park, the Moslem could say that the girl’s father called him a “Paki” – and laugh as the policeman arrests the father instead.
And hey, can you blame them? If you’re part of an invading army, why not take advantage of the fact that the British government serves your people at the expense of its own?
For today’s period of the Two Minute Hate, all British readers must shout and scream at this picture of Adolf Hitler. Please generate as much anger as possible at the man who almost had you all speaking German right now.