[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 83826)
Message
File  []
close
Pure Evil.jpg
838268382683826
>> No. 83826 Anonymous
5th January 2018
Friday 7:23 pm
83826 Nazi Dog Video: The Saga Continues
>Man who taught dog Nazi salutes ‘should be convicted of hate crime’

>A man who recorded his girlfriend’s dog giving Nazi salutes ‘should be convicted of committing a hate crime’, a court heard. Mark Meechan, 30, filmed pug Buddha responding to statements such as ‘gas the Jews’ and ‘Sieg Heil’ in video footage posted on Youtube.

>The original video, uploaded in April 2016, had been viewed more than three million times on YouTube. Meechan, of Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, is on trial at Airdrie Sheriff Court and denies any wrong doing. He insists he made the video to annoy his girlfriend Suzanne Kelly, 29. Prosecutors allege he communicated material that would cause fear and alarm and stir up hatred on religious grounds by posting a clip which was ‘anti-semitic in nature’ to YouTube.

>He also faces an alternative charge of posting a video on social media and YouTube which was grossly offensive because it was ‘anti-semitic and racist in nature’ and the prosecution claimed it was aggravated by religious prejudice. Prosecutors asked Sheriff Derek O’Carroll to convict Meechan after branding his actions an ‘odious criminal act’.

>The depute fiscal said: ‘The video contains footage of the accused stating 23 times in total the words ‘gas the Jews’ in a comparatively short period of time. ‘He accepts he was involved in editing and producing the footage and managed to distill it down to a short period of time. ‘This is not some two and a half hour production with many shards every half hour, this is a toxic distillation of what he may call the best bits of his video.

>‘He has made very, very, sure the phrase ‘gas the Jews’ is repeated over and over and over again. ‘The phrase contains a clear threat of incitement to carry out a seriously violent act. ‘He might just as well have said ‘murder the Jews’ that is the effect of the toxic phrase ‘gas the Jews’. ‘The historical fact of what happened to millions of Jews in a way that frankly is difficult for a civilised society or people to comprehend. ‘Any reasonable person would suffer fear or alarm having heard that awful phrase uttered over and over and over again.

>He added: ‘Mr Meechan said on oath he thought the phrase “gas the Jews” was one of the most horrible phrases he could think of. ‘This was an odious criminal act that was dressed up to look like a joke.

>‘He is a highly intelligent and articulate individual, we are not dealing with some callow youth who is inexperienced with what is going on in the world. ‘The Crown contention is that the inclusion of the dog is an attempt to muddy the waters around him making, producing and posting the video. Meechan had earlier told the court he only ever intended the video to be seen by a small group of friends on his YouTube account and insisted he still found it funny. The trial continues.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/05/man-taught-dog-nazi-salutes-convicted-hate-crime-7207577/

In the interest of discussing the factual evidence of this I feel I should include the video. Watch at your own discretion as this material is worth tremendous amounts of police resources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmTnmFdtCTs

On a completely unrelated story, the police no longer has the resources to deal with 'low-level crime' so key all the cars you want because nobody is going to stop you:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5227383/Scotland-Yard-not-investigate-low-level-crimes.html

Do you ever feel like we're living in a joke of a country?
Expand all images.
>> No. 83828 Anonymous
5th January 2018
Friday 7:41 pm
83828 spacer
>>83826
Thing is - when I first heard this story I thought it was ridiculous and hilarious and was prepared to believe and agree with what you say. But the video is downright creepy and I found it a bit more disturbing than I thought I would - it isn't a one off "hilarious" occurrence of a video, there has been a bit more training, preparation and effort put into it. I find myself agreeing with the prosecutor, which I am quite surprised at.
>> No. 83829 Anonymous
5th January 2018
Friday 7:54 pm
83829 spacer
>On a completely unrelated story, the police no longer has the resources to deal with 'low-level crime' so key all the cars you want because nobody is going to stop you:

But this has already gone to court, hasn't it? The coppers aren't the prosecution, mate.
>> No. 83830 Anonymous
5th January 2018
Friday 9:06 pm
83830 spacer
>>83826

> this is a toxic distillation
> the toxic phrase

Oh good lord, we have Paul Joseph Watsons in CPS prosecution positions now.

>>83828

You mean you didn't watch the video at the time? I did, and my opinion of it hasn't changed: if anything the video is anti-nazi.

Unfortunately sometimes mere words, regardless of context will upset those of simple minds. The same thing happened to Frankie Boyle over his "Ministry of war, department of N-word bombing" (I think the actual word is still worth an insta-ban here) joke. Luckily A) he wasn't charged with a hate crime and B) he was able to take the Sun to court for libel and won. I have no idea how this case has got this far so yes, I do think it's a joke. A bad one at that.
>> No. 83831 Anonymous
5th January 2018
Friday 9:07 pm
83831 spacer
>>83826
Well... I didn't watch it when it first broke, but watching it now... I have to say, it is a bit off. If it was just the first 10 seconds, I'd find it funny, but then it went about gasing Jews and all that...
>> No. 83832 Anonymous
5th January 2018
Friday 9:41 pm
83832 spacer
Mildly amusing video.

This should go into the new Paul Joseph Watson school textbooks (obviously with "G*S THE J*WS" bleeped out) as an example of the pure evil that hate crime can be.
>> No. 83833 Anonymous
5th January 2018
Friday 10:00 pm
83833 spacer
>>83826
What's the world coming to when a bloke can't teach his dog to salute in the privacy of his own home?

PLIKUL CREKNUS GORN MAAAAAD
>> No. 83834 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 12:26 am
83834 spacer
>>83830

Nigger test.
>> No. 83835 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 12:26 am
83835 spacer
>>83834

Still here
>> No. 83837 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 5:19 am
83837 spacer
>>83828

I think he just switched the words for "give a paw" and "walkies".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9JcOZlMlLY
>> No. 83838 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 11:35 am
83838 spacer
>>83828
>>83831
Can you tell us the exact moment where it became necessary to destroy a blokes life over his poor choice in humour? I mean the case has been dragged on for months and as a result the guy has not only lost his job but can't find another one.

Perhaps you saw some deleted scene I don't know about where the dog leads a pack of Neo-Nazi pedigrees to burn down the home of some mix-breeds. Or maybe the pug learned to drive a taxi and promptly set up a pedophile ring that prayed on vulnerable Golden Retriever pups (although maybe the police wouldn't bother with that one).
>> No. 83839 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 11:46 am
83839 spacer
20th March next court date.
>> No. 83840 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 12:13 pm
83840 spacer
It's interesting that when this video first went viral, the discussion was mostly whether it was funny or not. Now that it has the context of a court case behind it, apparently the video feels 'off' and 'sinister'.

I still think it's just a silly joke. I understand the need to have laws against the communication of incitement to violence, but if this video is a true example of that, then we should prosecute the makers of The Producers for all of those pro-nazi songs. They even do that in theatres! Like a rally! How about Sacha-Baron Cohen singing about throwing the jews down a well? Those examples have repeated 'toxic phrases' too. Or is it just customary to assume that a professional production is satire, while an amateur one is hate speech?
>> No. 83841 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 1:31 pm
83841 spacer
>>83838
His poor choice in humour, as you put it, reveals a lot about him though. The fact that he chose to spread and promote this humour on a public site, even more so.
>> No. 83842 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 1:44 pm
83842 spacer
>>83841
That reveals a lot more about you than him, to be fair.
>> No. 83843 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 2:07 pm
83843 spacer
>>83841

You can judge him to be whatever sort of person you like, but do you really believe this deserves prison time?
>> No. 83844 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 2:13 pm
83844 spacer
>>83843
No I don't - I was responding to the point about whether or not future employers deserved to know about this given that he posted it publicly in his own name.
>> No. 83845 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 3:16 pm
83845 spacer
>>83844
>I was responding to the point about whether or not future employers deserved to know about this given that he posted it publicly in his own name.
The answer to this question is indisputably and absolutely no. What you do in your personal life is nobody's business. Not his current employer, not his prospective employers, and certainly not the busybody cunts that like to harass people over it.
>> No. 83846 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 3:20 pm
83846 spacer
>>83841 >>83844
There are literally thousands of employers up and down the country that would happily see this as something not even needing to be overlooked. You fuckers act like everyone has to work for a saccharine professional services firm or some lame megacorp with a HR department that takes themselves too seriously. His tattoos, piercings and ear gauges would probably turn more people off.
>> No. 83847 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 3:24 pm
83847 spacer
>>83840
It's all funny to you because you aren't a Jew.
>> No. 83848 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 3:34 pm
83848 spacer
>>83847
He might not be but I am. I find it funny. Taking him to court for it is mad.
>> No. 83849 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 3:35 pm
83849 spacer
>>83847

Jews should just lighten up.
>> No. 83850 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 4:01 pm
83850 spacer
>>83849
Lighting up Jews is what got us into this mess.
>> No. 83851 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 4:11 pm
83851 spacer
>>83847

I didn't find it particularly funny but I can still identify that it was a joke.

It's more offensive that you're guessing my beliefs and heritage based on my views on this subject than even a completely sincere attempt to radicalise people with this video. I mean that.
>> No. 83852 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 4:18 pm
83852 spacer
>>83844

Since he posted it publicly with his own name, the right of an employer to discover that information is implicit - the fact he is in court over it, being tried as a criminal, is a different aspect that will change the likelihood of an employer declining his application. The context of him potentially being a nazi criminal was not inherent in the video alone, it is the questionable court hearings that have provided that.

You can post whatever the hell you want on YouTube under your own name, and if a potential employer sees it an reaches the conclusion you're unhirable, then fine. That's a normal social clause you're probably aware of. If you're then pulled in by the rozzers and named and shamed in the mass media for that video, in a way many people feel is unnecessary, I think that is different.
>> No. 83853 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 5:25 pm
83853 spacer
He's "Count Dankula" on YouTube and Twitter, although the video has still got his face on. I thought he only went public with his name, in interviews and such, after he got in legal trouble (and the papers already outed his name anyway.)
>> No. 83854 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 5:28 pm
83854 spacer
It's made him into such a cause célèbre amongst the alt-right that it's opened up the possibility of a new career for him as a professional youtuber and they've organised crowd-funding for his legal fees. He was a security guard before and also worked in a call centre so horrific he made videos about how bad it was.
>> No. 83855 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 5:34 pm
83855 spacer
>>83853

>He's "Count Dankula"

... and throw away the key!
>> No. 83857 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 5:37 pm
83857 spacer
I thought the video was hilarious. Sorry. I can see why Jews would be sensitive about it though.

I lived in the middle of nowhere in Scotland in the mid-90s and they really hated English people. There was even graffiti saying "English go home" and "Kill the English". My parents still live there and apparently they're fine with English people now and hate Poles instead.

Anyway, anti-English "jokes" felt very, very on-the-nose to me even if they flagrantly would have been seen as jokes to someone with more objectivity.

If you put something out on the internet, you're doing it in front of the whole world. You're saying retard in front of the mentally disabled and the n-word in front of black people and if you did that to their faces they'd be reasonable to wonder if you were being off with them.
>> No. 83858 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 5:45 pm
83858 spacer
>>83852
>You can post whatever the hell you want on YouTube under your own name, and if a potential employer sees it an reaches the conclusion you're unhirable, then fine.
No, not fine at all. The fact that it's on YouTube doesn't change the simple fact that it's literally none of their fucking business whatsoever.
>> No. 83859 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 5:50 pm
83859 spacer
>>83858

I'd google every potential employee if it was me. I don't think it's that weird to google people for information they've voluntarily put out there. If it's involuntary, like snooping through someone's eBay buyer history, it feels like a violation. I don't understand the mentality of people who put their whole lives in social media then get mad at "creepers" for looking.
>> No. 83860 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:02 pm
83860 spacer
>>83858

It's literally their business to hire someone suitable for the job. I'm not really talking about this video particularly, but I can think of plenty of YouTube videos that would demonstrate a person might not be as suited to a job as they might originally appear.

I'd also contend if you're daft enough to post publicly a video that makes you look like an idiot, then you're an idiot.

Would you hire someone who was an advocate for, say, the lowering of the legal age of consent, even if you didn't deal with kids? Is that none of your business still? He's not done anything illegal.
>> No. 83861 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:14 pm
83861 spacer
>>83860
>It's literally their business to hire someone suitable for the job.
Right, but what you get up to in your personal life is, by default, of no relevance to your suitability for most jobs. You're hiring someone for a few hours every day, not taking on an indentured slave.

>Would you hire someone who was an advocate for, say, the lowering of the legal age of consent, even if you didn't deal with kids? Is that none of your business still? He's not done anything illegal.
Absolutely. Why should it somehow make them less suitable for a job? I trust that people are perfectly capable of leaving their baggage at the door when they come to work. Deciding to hire people based on their opinions and actions outside the workplace is verging dangerously on discrimination.
>> No. 83862 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:26 pm
83862 spacer
>>83858
I don't know why your getting so worked up. It's more or less a public thing. He made it public. It would be like your boss seeing you in the middle of town while you try to train your dog to gas Jews.

Moron.
>> No. 83863 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:37 pm
83863 spacer
>>83862
>It would be like your boss seeing you in the middle of town while you try to train your dog to gas Jews.
Which, equally, would be none of his business, what with it not being at work and all.
>> No. 83864 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:41 pm
83864 spacer
>>83863
So you be happy hiring a person who eats his shit everyday after work in the middle of town?

Troll elsewhere lad.
>> No. 83865 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:46 pm
83865 spacer
>>83864
>So you be happy hiring a person who eats his shit everyday after work in the middle of town?
That depends. Is he competent at the job?

>Troll elsewhere lad.
Take your own advice, lad.
>> No. 83866 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:47 pm
83866 spacer
>>83865
If he likes eating shit he's probably a brown-noser.
>> No. 83867 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 6:59 pm
83867 spacer
>>83866
Then it's a definite no-hire. I can't fucking stand office politics.
>> No. 83868 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 10:33 pm
83868 spacer
>>83860
>Would you hire someone who was an advocate for, say, the lowering of the legal age of consent
That depends. Do I know this fact? If so, then it's problematic because that's a political opinion, which is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
>> No. 83869 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 11:06 pm
83869 spacer
>>83868
Is shit eating protected?
>> No. 83870 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 11:32 pm
83870 spacer
>>83868

>that's a political opinion, which is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Political opinions are specifically not a protected characteristic (Grainger plc and others v Nicholson). Political beliefs may be protected, but only if they constitute part of a philosophical belief.

To be protected as a philosophical belief, a political belief must be, amongst other things, "worthy of respect in a democratic society" and "not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others" (Olivier v Department of Work and Pensions). Good luck persuading a court or an EAT that legal noncing meets either of those criteria.
>> No. 83871 Anonymous
6th January 2018
Saturday 11:59 pm
83871 spacer
>>83870
>Good luck persuading a court or an EAT that legal noncing meets either of those criteria.
The fact that many jurisdictions have "Romeo and Juliet" laws makes out the former, and it's for you to disprove the latter.

You see? This is the sort of nonsense that happens when people start asking bollocks about not hiring people they don't agree with.
>> No. 83872 Anonymous
7th January 2018
Sunday 12:47 am
83872 spacer
>>83871

So we shouldn't hire the Nazi dog owner?
>> No. 83873 Anonymous
7th January 2018
Sunday 1:50 am
83873 spacer
>>83872
Obviously not. Dog people are disgusting.
>> No. 83874 Anonymous
7th January 2018
Sunday 8:00 am
83874 spacer
What's going to happen to the dog? Will it be deprogrammed or just put down?
>> No. 83875 Anonymous
7th January 2018
Sunday 1:54 pm
83875 spacer
>>83874

It's currently serving 18 months for inciting racial hatred.
>> No. 83876 Anonymous
7th January 2018
Sunday 2:51 pm
83876 spacer
>>83874
Worse. It'll be adopted by a crazy woman who will call it her child and send herself a Mother's Day card from the dog.
>> No. 83877 Anonymous
7th January 2018
Sunday 3:00 pm
83877 spacer
>>83875
Our about 8 weeks in human time.
>> No. 83878 Anonymous
7th January 2018
Sunday 4:57 pm
83878 spacer

Untitled.png
838788387883878
>>83875
>>83877
I hear he's already out on parole.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password