Caerphilly AM Jeff Cuthbert launched a new Tackling Hate Crimes and Incidents national framework on May 12.
The Minister for Communities and Tackling Poverty also announced the establishment of the Hate Crime Criminal Justice Board Cymru.
The board aims to make it easier for victims of hate crime to come forward.
The framework also includes a 24-hour helpline and website, www.reporthate.victimsupport.org.uk, for victims, run by Victim Support, which covers all aspects of hate crime.
The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Gwent welcomed the announcement.
PCC Ian Johnston said: “This new framework will add considerable value to the work of Gwent Police and its partners in protecting people from serious harm and will improve the quality of service available to victims of hate crime in Gwent.
“Whether it’s hate crime to do with race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender or age, there should be no room for these crimes in 21st Century society.
“We don’t want victims to suffer in silence and that’s why support from frameworks such as this one is vital.”
Hate crime can be reported to Victim Support directly 24/7 on 08456 121 900.
This “hate crime” will eventually be extended to free speech. Having a somewhat derogatory opinion of your council, its members or the ruling party won’t be tolerated. You heard it here first. (already expecting a knock on the door)
I think you’re right there. Disagreeing will soon become the new hate and we will all be prosecuted.
We should be allowed to say whatever we want, to whoever we want.
It looks like you and ‘Realist’ are right. I entered a perfectly reasonable comment which outlined my position. This has been supressed. It appears free speech has gone the way of Spangles and Ra-Ra skirts in this country.
Hi Richard,
Your comment hasn’t been “suppressed”. It ended up in the moderation queue by mistake.
Cheers
What are the key words or phrases that cause a comment to end up in the moderation queue so we know to avoid them in future and make your life easier?
In this instance it was gobbledygook. The system thought it contained a racial slur.
I’m holding my head in my hands after reading this reasoning.
No system is perfect and it is something we’re trying to improve.
Or the schools who don’t do a traditional play incase it offends. I think it’s to do with wider political correctness. After all, part of the reasoning to say ‘police offiicer’ instead of WPC or PC was to prevent offence and being about greater equality.
You make an excellent point with the internet. It’s impossible to see the tone. Sometimes, calling someone a sheep ******* or another name is done in a harmless, banter type way? At work I was defending UKIP as being non-racist, one or two people jokingly called me a fascist Nazi. Obviosuly they weren’t serious and I didn’t take offence but all his will be cut out in fear the perks. Will take offence and they’ll end up in court.
Just look at Sweden. It will be illegal come December it criticise immigration. That’s ludicrous. They are eliminating a debate on a vitally important issue.
Correct Dean; a cliché often used is “political
correctness gone mad.” This is inaccurate as it implies some political correctness is fine but sometimes it is taken too far. The concept of political
correctness is anti democratic.
In Germany, from 1933 to 1945, in the Soviet Union from 1917 onward, a person had to be careful what they said or wrote in case it offended the consensus. A
consensus that was defined by the ruling elite.
Britain was a far more tolerant society and was open to widely divergent views. This is no longer the case. Our political class, who are a tiny portion of our
population, are now gleefully making the rules up as they go along. We have laws that protect individuals from slander and libel. This is good enough for
me, extreme verbal bullying can also be dealt with under ancient laws. I fear that ‘hate crime’ is a vehicle for those who hold power in our society to protect themselves from open debate. They will fail, as various totalitarian
regimes have found, the World Wide Web is impossible to control.
The moderation queue is designed, and has been used by this media, to remove comments of a political, partisan nature, where one party `could be offended, it is regularly used to protect local politicians from political critical comment, and the `reason` for doing so, given by the editor, is that the comment could be seen as a personal attack of that politician, nonesence of course, because if any public figure decides to raise their head above the parapet and make a published comment of any sort, I and all other members of the public have a right to reply.
I suppose such `poor, sensitive, and fragile local politicians need protecting from themselves, so this paper simply helps them out with its censorship policies.
Will this comment be pulled? who knows, but i`ll email it around anyway.
The editor gave the example of the word ‘gobbeldygook.’ The word didn’t appear in Richard’s comment when it was published. What did they replace it with?
Why does the filter act in that way?
This newspaper is getting ridiculous with moderation. They should just turn it off completely. But of course, that may cause ‘offence’ so they don’t dare do it.
Richard: does it then appear that you have been branded a potential hate
crime offender, by this new media outlet, because of the way it
`assumed` the role of moderator/censor of your comments, that would be
serious accusations would it not?.
Yes Arthur, it does and it is is. The problem is for the arbitrators of what is acceptable in today’s world is that my formative years were spent in a time when people could speak their mind and pretty much write what they liked without fear of the consequences of causing offence. This was the post Second World War era when, hard won, freedoms were being joyously used by people of my background. Non conformist (In a religious sense),
reasonably well educated, trade union
members.
The days of deference to those who set themselves up as “the authorities” seemed to be over. Any
member of our community could voice their opinion on any issue. It seemed that the era of doffing ones cap to your superiors and getting up at five each
morning to see if there was a day’s work at the pit, factory or docks were gone for good.
Alas, this proved to be a brief epoch of freedom. We now live in a country where the London metropolitan elite decide what is acceptable to think and say. Zero hours contracts are talked about as “suiting some workers”, as if anybody in their right mind wants a job with no safeguards regarding continuity
of employment, no holiday pay and no
guarantee that hard earned money will be available tomorrow. The modern equivalent of going to the pit to find out how many workers the manager wanted
today.
Going back to the first paragraph I am incapable, because of my upbringing, of speaking or writing an
expurgated version of my beliefs. I do not deliberately cause offence but know that I am almost certain to offendsomeone. Virtually anything written that is not anodyne in content is liable to be an affront to someone. That is just too bad, I am daily offended by the
writings of smug, privileged politicians. Despite the bad press surrounding them UKIP appear to be the only party that confronts the issues that trouble people about the EU experiment. I am amused by the political parties and media desperately trying to stuff thisparticular genie back into the bottle. Love him or loath him Farage has lit a fire under their behinds and this has got to be good for free speech. Despite being a million miles from Mr. Farage in background, wealth and political ideas I am looking forward to his party wiping the floor with those overweaning political parties and commentators who have the arrogance to tell us all how to think.
Fair critical comment is perfectly acceptable. Unsubstantiated accusations are not. All comments are published unmoderated unless they have an offensive word/s. If a comment is complained about and we feel there are grounds for its removal then we will do so.
If we spot something that we feel should come down, such as a potentially libellous comment, then we take action.
I’m sorry that you feel your comments are unfairly targeted.
I am sure ‘Arthur’ can, and will, answer for himself but I would like to empasise what I consider free speech to be about. The core of the concept can be summarised as; The right to offend IS what free speech means!
I have never had many problems with my comments to this paper as I aim to be factually correct and have never gone for personal attacks. However I remember that I was once critical of the action, or lack of, on the issue of air pollution by the council, which was then Plaid controlled. I was a member of the AQMA (Air quality management area) steering group at this time and despite my comment being factual it was removed after a complaint by those who were exposed to, what was in their view, bad publicity.
On the opposite side, I was once debating an issue with someone who was hostile to me and their comment was deleted. I never asked for this and it made my own reply nonsensical in isolation. The very good point that Arthur makes is that people who offer themselves for election have to expect criticism. It is unfortunate that some local politicians expect Caerphilly Observer to protect them. I am made of sterner stuff, which is probably why I never class myself as a politician!