Scottish man convicted for Nazi dog hate crime : Update - fined £800

[Fame Monster]

All this about context and jokes is bullshit. What part of him saying "Gas the Jews" is not a race hate crime ? If he was saying "Drown the Packies" or "Burn the Blacks" it would be treated exactly the same. He got off lightly with his fine if you ask me.

In the same way that you saying 'gas the jews', 'burn the blacks' or 'drown the packies' is not a race hate crime. Context is everything. And the context was that he was saying 'do you want to gas the jews?' as a trigger for the dog to perform a Nazi salute, plus he explained that it was purely for comic purposes and shouldn't be mistaken for his political beliefs. It's almost identical to a bit that Frankie Boyle does in one of his shows, where he jokes about British foreign policy being 'the department of ****** bombing' and then tells a story about a guy who met him after his show to say "the word '******' shouldn't be used in any context" to which Frankie Boyle's reply is, 'youve just used it you daft ****'. A lot of the crowd laugh at that story, I think the stand-up show is on netflix at the minute. According to the precedent set by this case though, it might not be up there for much longer and Frankie Boyle might be having a criminal record if he carries on making jokes that.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defendant. You can't prove intent beyond the balance of probability here, never mind beyond reasonable doubt. If he was financially able to hire a decent barrister and appeal it he'd probably win as they've overstepped the bounds by assigning intent without proving it. As he says in the video above, why should anyone consider your context when nobody is considering his?

As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. For me, it is repugnant in any context, and a hate crime has rightly been proven.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

And furthermore Wally, the very fact that the punishment was only an £800 fine shows that the judge considered it a petty offence.

No it does not. Sentencing depends on a many factors. Guidelines, previous convictions, and means testing on fines to name a few

 

[aguero93:20]

No it does not. Sentencing depends on a many factors. Guidelines, previous convictions, and means testing on fines to name a few

Yeah, previous. Obviously he has no previous incidents of bigotry. Kind of hard to claim intent without that.

 

[SWP's back]

In my view if the guy wants to train his dog then so be it. Putting video of it doing so in this manner is bound to offend some people - Jeremy Corbyn will tell you that - so he shouldn't have been that surprised when the Police knocked at the door. Had he kept it personal or local none of this would have happened. However for me where the issue lies is judge's the claim that context in humour doesn't matter. Without context there is no humour - black or gallows humour relies totally on is getting it or not because of the context in which the joke is framed and ultimately if you don't get it then yes you have the right to be offended but ONLY if you do so on the understand it was only a joke and any such offence caused was unintentional. Without any of that then we may as well ban all comedy.

Yeah agree with that although I’ll add that he should be fined £800 simply for looking like a ****.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Yeah, previous. Obviously he has no previous incidents of bigotry. Kind of hard to claim intent without that.

Again wrong. Every case before the court is heard on its own merits and his offending history or its kind will have had no part in it

 

[aguero93:20]

Again wrong. Every case before the court is heard on its own merits and his offending history or its kind will have had no part in it

That's not the way it works.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

That's not the way it works.

Yes it is, unless the prosecution apply to make a Bad Character application and the court decide to approve it. None was made in this case, the man has no previous convictions. The case was heard and decided on the evidence available evidence and not his previous history as you termed it.
Educate me then as to how it does work

 

[Magicpole]

As a Scot, I’m more concerned that this twat thought it was funny.

Is it a hate crime? Depends on his motivation and unless he has a history of being a bigot, we are bursting at the seams with them, then he may not be a racist, right wing twat.

Just a low intelligence, unfunny, boring ****, who has shamed a nations humour.

Are we actually sure he isn’t Welsh? :)

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

As a Scot, I’m more concerned that this twat thought it was funny.

Is it a hate crime? Depends on his motivation and unless he has a history of being a bigot, we are bursting at the seams with them, then he may not be a racist, right wing twat.

Just a low intelligence, unfunny, boring ****, who has shamed a nations humour.

Are we actually sure he isn’t Welsh? :)

The court actually observed how he is very intelligent. He taught a dog to make the most offensive actions in response to commands about genocide. He was certainly intelligent enough to know that if he did it, he would be arrested and charged, so trying to be clever he trained a dog to do instead. It has rightly backfired on him. For me, he is in your words a racist, right wing twat. He didnt teach the dog to the Macarana did he?