Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Bernard Peek on 6 Jun 2010 06:14 On 06/06/10 10:51, D.M. Procida wrote: > Bernard Peek<bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > >>> I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this >>> case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and >>> an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the >>> bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. >> >> I've only been subscribed a relatively short while, but that isn't the >> impression that I have. > > I don't think it's true at all. > >> In any case there are quite a few steps before any action escalates as far >> as a court. > > The legal status of disability hate crime (I don't think 'hate' is a > useful word, but that's a different issue) is changing rapidly. The legislation against hate crime may or may not be applicable, but other laws are. Rowland is entitled to equal access to the service, with 'reasonable adjustments' being required to provide that. I expect that a complaint to an ISP about someone's behaviour in this respect would require them to act under the Disability Discrimination Act, presumably by terminating the user's account. There is a much stronger case for termination of the account than just for copyright violations as failure to act could be a criminal rather then civil issue. If the same user opened a new account and did the same again then there are further escalations available, ASBOs etc. > > Concerted efforts by disability rights groups over the last five years > have made a real and surprising difference to the way it's treated by > the media, by the police, the CPS, and the courts. > > The CPS changed its guidelines to prosecutors on crimes against the > disabled very recently. The Scottish Parliament brought in new > legislation last year. The number of crimes against the disabled > reported by the media seems to have risen exponentially in the last > three years. > > What has changed principally is the notion of what constitutes culpable > behaviour. > > Previously, prosecutors' idea of a crime was a major incident. > > Now, a pattern of abuse or harrassment, or a series of repeated attacks, > even if each on its own is not a serious incident, can be (should be) > treated as a serious crime. There has been recent case law and I believe one recent instance of someone being charged with manslaughter for causing a suicide. > > There's obviously a difference between merely being a party in an > exchange of nasty abuse and mounting a hate campaign against a disabled > person. > > Most of what goes on here looks like the former to me, but there is one > person at least (who's thankfully not around right now) who seems to be > doing something that looks more like the latter. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: Steve Firth on 6 Jun 2010 06:11 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > Why, because you say so? > > Yes. Because unlike you, I'm not nasty. Untrue, you're nasty but you don't realise when you are being so. You're happy to beat on a blind man for example.
From: Peter Ceresole on 6 Jun 2010 06:45 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > This is the warm, considerate not-nasty side of Peter Ceresole is it? If > I've "flipped" then by your standards you have to be nice to me. Or are > you being a hypocrite, again? Don't be more bloody stupid than you have to be. I have never attacked a blind person here. Get a grip- if you're capable of doing so. In fact, I'm not sure that you are; over the years, I've seen you quite incapable of understanding how people function. Systems, maybe; people may hire you to interpret systems. But people and their motivations are totally beyond you. Not good, or useful. -- Peter
From: Steve Firth on 6 Jun 2010 06:56 Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > There has been recent case law and I believe one recent instance of > someone being charged with manslaughter for causing a suicide. Yes, I completely agree with you. Rowland's blatant campaign of vilification and harassment of someone who is disabled opens Rowland up to prosecution for harassment or for Rowland to be issued with an ASBO. Indeed Rowland has a long history of attacking the disabled in this newsgroup and no doubt all of the politically right-on among you will want to see him face the justice that is long overdue. Or, like others, are you of the opinion that it's OK for Rowland to harass the blind, the dyslexic and others? Certainly several people here seem to think that harassing the blind and those with dyslexia is fair game. Look at the many nasty posts made by those preening themselves on how "nice" they are to individuals who have those disabilities.
From: Ian Piper on 6 Jun 2010 07:05
On 2010-06-06 09:46:54 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) said: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Now imagine being locked into that situation. It must be terrifying- >> certainly horribly stressful and sad. > > Yet all of you are willing to jump all over someone who is blind, > apparently not recognising the effect that blindess has in isolating > someone and making them feel vulnerable. It's not "important" as you > claim to kot-tow to Rowland, he's a nasty little fucker and he delights > in the fact that he can roundly insult anyone he likes then hide behind > his (unverified) claims of mental illness. I'm a bit confused about the above. Presumably "all of you" in the sense of - well, "all of you people in this group" - includes me. If so, I take you up on that allegation. I have *never* beaten up on anyone who is blind on the basis of their blindness, nor have I abused anyone with mental problems on the basis of those problems. The situation, to me, is much simpler. This group is here for discussing things Mac-related, and I take any posting here on its own merits. I don't really care what problems the poster might have, any more than I expect people to care about my problems. Those problems are not relevant to a discussion of things Mac-related. If I disagree with something I read here I will respond to the posting, not the poster. If I think the poster is a tosser, a troll, abusive or otherwise unpleasant then I kill-file them. That's why I don't have to read anything from Rowland McDonnell, James Jolley, Chris Holland or T i m, except when others kindly quote them :-( Luckily there are plenty of erudite people here whose musings I do want to read, so kill-filing the others is no loss at all. Ian. -- Ian Piper Author of "Learn Xcode Tools for Mac OS X and iPhone Development", Apress, December 2009 Learn more here: http://learnxcodebook.com/� --� |