Winston McKenzi - Homo Comment

First topic message reminder :

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/big_brother/6849123/Celebrity-Big-Brother-2016-Winston-McKenzie-refuses-to-apologise-for-anti-gay-comments-as-Emma-Willis-goes-to-war.html

How many of us have said the same thing over the years??????

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Based off irrational religious beliefs.
That is why it is important to challenge such beliefs, because it makes people wrongly think some people are not fit to parent when all the evidence proves that they are.

Why would an atheist base anything on a religious belief?

Religious upbringing

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He just appears to think that it's better for children to have a mother and a father - that view could be held by an athiest too.

as long as the parents love them i don`t think it matters

they are kids with dads or moms that are not the best people to bring up kids  

I don't really care who adopts a kid, I just think this is a bit of a fuss over an opinion.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why would an atheist base anything on a religious belief?

Religious upbringing

Why would you assume than an atheist had a religious upbringing?

Some people just think that a mother and father is best - nothing to do with religion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Religious upbringing

Why would you assume than an atheist had a religious upbringing?

Some people just think that a mother and father is best - nothing to do with religion.

Very much so and very much so in his case, may I suggest you prove me wrong on that.
Again this always stems from religious beliefs that are steeped within society, even tot he tune of athiests, because it is a view that has been around for centuries that views homosexuals as wrong based off religious reasoning. Some today may well be athiest but the reasoning still stems from parent beliefs as well.

Is it not possible that he was chosen for BB because there was a gay bloke who was also chosen?

These silly programmes are there to entertain the desperate masses, so they'll pick people who are a bit controversial and who are likely to fall out with someone.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Religious upbringing

Why would you assume than an atheist had a religious upbringing?

Some people just think that a mother and father is best - nothing to do with religion.

your right you cant assume it but i would like to say in my case its true Sunday school the lot religious education.....but it didn`t stick

It's like the Jade Goody thing all over again. I think one of the housemates nearly had a breakdown over all that nonsense.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:My point was people were debating whether this was a "hate crime". By legal definition, this wasn't as it was not directed at a particular individual.

However it may be construed as "incitement towards hatred", which can be directed at group.

Apparently incitement laws have been beefed up to include homosexuals but I don't know which act precisely.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/23/law-against-homophobic-hatred-comes-into-effect/

No Zack that is not correct and the law is quite clear on this in that it doesn't have to be against just an individual, it can be against a group.

Eilzel wrote:Presumably he doesn't, like the slavers...

But he is, and saying me and my partner having a child is akin to abuse is vile and wrong.

Yes it is just that Les and you are quite correct in saying that.

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:No Zack is right and as usual Irn gets it wrong because their is no victim her specifically, which is what a hate crime is.
How many times does Irn get it wrong?
Daily?

Ah Didge, you must have missed this from the CPS....

It was the first prosecution of its kind since a law against stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation came into force in 2010.

"This was the first case of its kind in British legal history and a significant step forward for us in protecting the LGB [lesbian, gay and bisexual] community," Mr Starmer said.

You can stand in McKenzie's corner and defend him all you like but you're wrong and it begs the question why are you doing that when the evidence is right there in front of you. Go and read the CPS report.

Utter absurdity again, I am not defending but showing that it is not a hate crime, as I made it very clear his views were vile, so that is not defending no matter how you pathetically try to claim otheriwse

I have not missed anything as a view not directed at a victim is not a hate crime

You're wrong as it can me against a group not just a person.

Didge wrote:All the case studies have victims in the CPS report, showing you have not the first clue what you are on about.

That ststement just shows that you don't even understand the law and how to interpret it. You just actually confirmed that KD has been correct all along in you saying that there were [b]victims[/b in the case studies.] i.e. a group.

Eilzel wrote:So just got to reading this.

Overall, vic is right in general that this is a very grey area.

However, as eddie and didge have pointed out, he hasn't been arrested and no one has pressed charges, which really alone says there probably aren't grounds to do so. He is a homophobic twat for sure, and deserves to be pelted with eggs tbh. But he hasn't broken the law. And his filthy views have received a fitting reaction from the public!

Let him speak his filth- as seen with the BNP this week, hate is on the way out

Vic did call it right when he stated that what this clown McKenzie has been saying is worthy of investigation into whether a hate crime has been committed.

The law is pefectly clear on what is classed as a hate crime ever since Labour introduced the legislation to make it clearer back in 2008 and I have shown where that was done earlier on this very thread.

So why hasn't he been charged?

Cases are different Irn. I despise what he said, and hope his career is totally ruined for saying it. But I don't see how it violates the law.

Also, the document you linked to gives a few case studies which all have victims of sometimes persistent abuse. They are all real crimes. Making a dumbass, homophobic statement, while stupid and nasty, isn't a crime.

Eilzel wrote:So why hasn't he been charged?

Cases are different Irn. I despise what he said, and hope his career is totally ruined for saying it. But I don't see how it violates the law.

Hi there Les. The point I'm makimg is that a hate crime doesn't have to be against just an indivudual (one person) and that KD has been right all along in challenging those that say it it does have to be against a specific person or no crime has been committed. That's wrong and the law is quite clear on that.

As far as I understand it Winston McKenzie said that same sex couples who adopt a child is child abuse. If Winston McKenzie said generaly implying that all same couples who adopt a child are engaged in child abuse then it's also a hate crime due to the law being improved to cover that...but.

the bone of contention is (and this is what Vic was alluding to in that it is worthy of investigation) to establish if he said that with the intention stiring up hatred against  people (a group of people) who are homosexual and based on there sexual orientation and that he was aware of the distress that it would cause them. If he did and he was then that is a hate crime plain and simple. And let's face it there are no signs of him backing down and withdrawing what he said

It's up to the CPS to decide whether to take it forward and investigate whether to charge him so let's take what Vic said as the best way forward and investigate his disgusting comments.

So let's make it quite clear that it doesn't have to be against a specific person - it can be a group because that's what the law says.

Double post

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:


Utter absurdity again, I am not defending but showing that it is not a hate crime, as I made it very clear his views were vile, so that is not defending no matter how you pathetically try to claim otheriwse

I have not missed anything as a view not directed at a victim is not a hate crime

You're wrong as it can me against a group not just a person.

No I am not wrong at all, as show me the criminal law broken for making a view point, made in a conversation, not specifiic at a person?In none of your cases in the CPS report were at homosexuals as a groups they were at specific victms.This is your problem, you jump in trying to defend peopple because of your warped obsession with me failing to understand the law and not only that cannot find one single case that has a person convicted for homophobic hate for a point of view non specific. So not matter how much you keep saying I am wrong, nothing and no evidence backs your claim what so ever. The very fact you accused me wrongly of trying to defend him but not lay the same claim onto either Eddie or Eilzel, when no such charge has been brought against him except from a poster was also poor and absurd showong the true level of your obsession of hate you have for me. When I defend against homophobia all the time. The very fact you tried to deflect claiming something I never did, when there has never been a charge against him, shows again how you make it a pathetic childish personal vendetta. Nobody has also said it cannot be more than one person, where a group of people are the target of hate but it has to be directly levelled at them specifically, the point you fail to grasp. With a hate crime there has to be a victim or victims.This was dealt with earlier which shows you did not even have the decency to even read the thread, because Korben placed up cases liker the one with the cabin crew, but there again the hate was directed specifically at them. It astounds me how you are more desperate to prove me wrong than recognise that you are wrong.


I am absolutely bored to death with your pathetic little grudge that you seem incapble of moving on from. Even Victor could not prove his point. The law maybe a grey area, but no CPS would even entertain such a charge for a point of view, as they would come under so much flak for their stupidity, being laughed out of court by the judge, but it would also set a precedent for them millions to be prosecuted for having views not directed at a person or people specifically. That is what is so annoying, that again people have to waste time going over things already debated on here and all because you hold some lame pathetic childish grudge. This is what the regressive left stand for, hate and are no better than the far right, as both are bigoted and treat those not of their views with the most vile hateful distain.

I mean this is how absurd your view is:

Are you telling me a vile person at work who says to a work mate, which is overheard and reported to HR, that Homosexuals are child abusers raising children, will be arrested that HR will call the Police and then be prosecuted?

Ae you telling me where someone overhears a vile person in a pub say, that Homosexuals are child abusers raising children, that the Police will attend to arrest him after a 999 call is placed for making this comment?

Seriously are you going to go on record here and say that they have committed a hate crime?


Now again I suggest you put up or shut up on the following.


Last chance

So again show me any case where someone has been convicted for homophobic hate crime for having a point of view, said ina conversation, not specific to any one person?

The case of the Brighton football case shows there is no longer any hiding place for these disgusting creatures who will be hauled into court and prosecuted under the hate crime legislation. It's simply not not funny and should not be tolerated, and isn't.

Case Study from CPS



This CPS South East case arose from circumstances after a Brighton and Hove Albion and Derby County football match.

All roads lead to the station and consequently converge at certain points. As police were patrolling they heard some of the Derby County fans chanting at the Brighton and Hove Albion fans. The Police made their way towards the fans and one officer heard homophobic abuse being chanted over and over again. He saw two males at the front of the group with their arms spread wide chanting these words. They were both arrested.  In interview both suspects gave the same account: that they had consumed alcohol before the game and that they were exchanging ‘banter’ with the Brighton fans. They fully admitted using other derogatory terms but stated that at the time it was just a bit of fun. On reflection, they both stated
that they could see that it was homophobic.

The decision of the magistrates was that homophobic chanting is a serious and growing problem. They considered that there were reasonable grounds to believe that making an order would help to prevent violence and disorder and sends out message to other fans. Both defendants made subject to a three year Football Banning Order and sentenced for Public Order Act offences. They were fined £87 and £160 respectively,
£50 costs and £20 Victims’ Surcharge


I guess they didn't agree it was banter.

Here is the telling point:

Derby County fans chanting at the Brighton and Hove Albion fans.


Again there is victims here specifically and again some people fail to grasp the law

Irn Bru wrote:

Eilzel wrote:So why hasn't he been charged?

Cases are different Irn. I despise what he said, and hope his career is totally ruined for saying it. But I don't see how it violates the law.

Hi there Les. The point I'm makimg is that a hate crime doesn't have to be against just an indivudual (one person) and that KD has been right all along in challenging those that say it it does have to be against a specific person or no crime has been committed. That's wrong and the law is quite clear on that.

As far as I understand it Winston McKenzie said that same sex couples who adopt a child is child abuse. If Winston McKenzie said generaly implying that all same couples who adopt a child are engaged in child abuse then it's also a hate crime due to the law being improved to cover that...but.

the bone of contention is (and this is what Vic was alluding to in that it is worthy of investigation) to establish if he said that with the intention stiring up hatred against  people (a group of people) who are homosexual and based on there sexual orientation and that he was aware of the distress that it would cause them. If he did and he was then that is a hate crime plain and simple. And let's face it there are no signs of him backing down and withdrawing what he said

It's up to the CPS to decide whether to take it forward and investigate whether to charge him so let's take what Vic said as the best way forward and investigate his disgusting comments.

So let's make it quite clear that it doesn't have to be against a specific person - it can be a group because that's what the law says.

No, that's not what he meant. He didn't mean that gay couples are more likely to abuse a child in the sense of mistreating the child.

The person who wants someones career totally ruined for speaking words is far more vile, evil than that person IMHO.
What an awful thing to put ones name to.

The law seems to be quite clear, even with the given examples.

A hate crime seems to require 2 things:

1. An actual crime (ABH, GBH, theft to non violent crime such as verbal abuse)
2. And that crime needs to be racially motivated. Such as, if I hit someone or indeed a GROUP of people because they were of a particular legally protected demographic.

Incitement to hatred is hate speech directed at an ENTIRE GROUP that could motivate others to commit a "hate crime", but no actual physical crime as committed.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:The law seems to be quite clear, even with the given examples.

A hate crime seems to require 2 things:

1. An actual crime (ABH, GBH, theft to non violent crime such as verbal abuse)
2. And that crime needs to be racially motivated. Such as, if I hit someone or indeed a GROUP of people because they were of a particular legally protected demographic.

Incitement to hatred is hate speech directed at an ENTIRE GROUP that could motivate others to commit a "hate crime", but no actual physical crime as committed.

Fine with the above and agree, but again he would not get arrested for incitement to hatred for a genralizied view point in conversation, as already stated by other examples I gace and understanding the new amenment in its entirety

Look the simple fact is: he hasn't been arrested or even spoken to by police so

NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED

End of.

The only crime committed is that no one told him he was an ignorant fucking prick.
I will gladly tell him.

eddie wrote:Look the simple fact is: he hasn't been arrested or even spoken to by police so

NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED

End of.

The only crime committed is that no one told him he was an ignorant fucking prick.
I will gladly tell him.

+1

Thank you didge
I am clever only on Wednesdays it seems

eddie wrote:Thank you didge
I am clever only on Wednesdays it seems

Is your super power chocolate by any chance?

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Thank you didge
I am clever only on Wednesdays it seems

Is your super power chocolate by any chance?

Yes!

I'm with you on this Eds x

^stormee, address me by name not 'the person who wants...' Like the cowardly little frog turd you are. Thanks.

Eilzel wrote:I'm with you on this Eds x

^stormee, address me by name not 'the person who wants...' Like the cowardly little frog turd you are. Thanks.

Hi Les x
Can you please direct me to storms post so I can see if it's abusive or offensive?
I obviously missed it.

Eilzel wrote:I'm with you on this Eds x

^stormee, address me by name not 'the person who wants...' Like the cowardly little frog turd you are. Thanks.

My word young lady, you are out of control, over emotional and irrational, calm down, stop showing yourself up.
My intention was to make my post to mean 'anyone' but obviously I failed but in any case you would have been included in my mind.

I do not usually answer such nastiness but I have a overwhelming respect for females so in this case I have made an exception.

Be nice, you know it makes sense.

Stormee wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I'm with you on this Eds x

^stormee, address me by name not 'the person who wants...' Like the cowardly little frog turd you are. Thanks.

My word young lady, you are out of control, over emotional and irrational, calm down, stop showing yourself up.
My intention was to make my post to mean 'anyone' but obviously I failed but in any case you would have been included in my mind.

I do not usually answer such nastiness but I have a overwhelming respect for females so in this case I have made an exception.

Be nice, you know it makes sense.

Treading on thin ice, as he is not a lady, but a man, a far better man than yourself and again it shows you would be better placed living in either saudi or the present ISIS Caliphate.

Didge wrote:

Stormee wrote:

My word young lady, you are out of control, over emotional and irrational, calm down, stop showing yourself up.


My intention was to make my post to mean 'anyone' but obviously I failed but in any case you would have been included in my mind.

I do not usually answer such nastiness but I have a overwhelming respect for females so in this case I have made an exception.

Be nice, you know it makes sense.

Treading on thin ice, as he is not a lady, but a man, a far better man than yourself and again it shows you would be better placed living in either saudi or the present ISIS Caliphate.

Ooooops, honestly.

I never mentioned the word 'lady', please try to be accurate and not personal, it spoils threads, is that your intention? Dindge.

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:


Treading on thin ice, as he is not a lady, but a man, a far better man than yourself and again it shows you would be better placed living in either saudi or the present ISIS Caliphate.

Ooooops, honestly.

I never mentioned the word  'lady', please try to be accurate and not personal, it spoils threads, is that your intention? Dindge.

I am just trying to save you ending up in the basement, but the way you are continuing to break the rules being underhanded in your discrmination is your your own choice.
You want to hang yourself by your own posts, then so be it.

Eilzel wrote:I'm with you on this Eds x

^stormee, address me by name not 'the person who wants...' Like the cowardly little frog turd you are. Thanks.

He probably couldn't remember your name at the time, which is understandable. Your post was quite rude.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I'm with you on this Eds x

^stormee, address me by name not 'the person who wants...' Like the cowardly little frog turd you are. Thanks.

He probably couldn't remember your name at the time, which is understandable. Your post was quite rude.

But the homphobic comments were acceptable to you?

Didge wrote:

Stormee wrote:

Ooooops, honestly.

I never mentioned the word  'lady', please try to be accurate and not personal, it spoils threads, is that your intention? Dindge.

I am just trying to save you ending up in the basement, but the way you are continuing to break the rules being underhanded in your discrmination is your your own choice.
You want to hang yourself by your own posts, then so be it.

How is he breaking the rules? I've been mistaken for a man before - on here obviously, not in real life.

Also, I keep thinking that Stardesk is a woman - because of his avatar I think.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He probably couldn't remember your name at the time, which is understandable. Your post was quite rude.

But the homphobic comments were acceptable to you?

What homophobic comments?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am just trying to save you ending up in the basement, but the way you are continuing to break the rules being underhanded in your discrmination is your your own choice.
You want to hang yourself by your own posts, then so be it.

How is he breaking the rules? I've been mistaken for a man before - on here obviously, not in real life.

Also, I keep thinking that Stardesk is a woman - because of his avatar I think.

He knows for a fact Eilze is a man and homosexual and hence why he continues to make homophobic comments which you seem to pass making any mention of, which is odd.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But the homphobic comments were acceptable to you?

What homophobic comments?

Wow, seriously just wow

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How is he breaking the rules? I've been mistaken for a man before - on here obviously, not in real life.

Also, I keep thinking that Stardesk is a woman - because of his avatar I think.

He knows for a fact Eilze is a man and homosexual and hence why he continues to make homophobic comments which you seem to pass making any mention of, which is odd.

How do you know he knows Les is a man?

Stormee wrote:I cannot understand why anyone who is not a disgusting depraved pervert homo turd burglar themselves would support those who are.

Nothing to see here Rags does not think any homophobic comments have been made

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


He knows for a fact Eilze is a man and homosexual and hence why he continues to make homophobic comments which you seem to pass making any mention of, which is odd.

How do you know he knows Les is a man?

Again even more wow, seriously, what an absurd question.

I know he is a man, if you do not believe that, hey that is your issue

Didn't see that post.

No comment from you on Les's rudeness then Didge?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How do you know he knows Les is a man?

Again even more wow, seriously, what an absurd question.

I know he is a man, if you do not believe that, hey that is your issue

Yes, but how do you know that Stormee knows Les is a man?

Raggamuffin wrote:Didn't see that post.

No comment from you on Les's rudeness then Didge?

Well considering Eilzel has had to put up with far more abuse than just about anyone for just being homosexual, I think I can cut him some slack to be honest when he has had small minded bigots abuse him for years on forums. Is he wrong to say what he said? Yes, but if in his shoes, I would get fed up also due to the constant prejudice abuse.
Also have you never seen him put up his picture on here?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didn't see that post.

No comment from you on Les's rudeness then Didge?

Well considering Eilzel has had to put up with far more abuse than just about anyone for just being homosexual, I think I can cut him some slack to be honest when he has had small minded bigots abuse him for years on forums. Is he wrong to say what he said? Yes, but if in his shoes, I would get fed up also due to the constant prejudice abuse.
Also have you never seen him put up his picture on here?

I've seen him use a pic of a chap as an avatar, but I don't know if that was him or not. What does that have to do with it anyway? It was ages ago. Stormee probably wasn't a member then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well considering Eilzel has had to put up with far more abuse than just about anyone for just being homosexual, I think I can cut him some slack to be honest when he has had small minded bigots abuse him for years on forums. Is he wrong to say what he said? Yes, but if in his shoes, I would get fed up also due to the constant prejudice abuse.
Also have you never seen him put up his picture on here?

I've seen him use a pic of a chap as an avatar, but I don't know if that was him or not. What does that have to do with it anyway? It was ages ago. Stormee probably wasn't a member then.

Well considering you have still not condemned his comments and the fact he decides to call someone a lady, supposedlly not knowing their gender, but immediatelly calls him a lady, you will forgive me if for one I believe he knows Eilzel is male and two quite frankly what you think is irrelevant when you do not condemn such homophobia

I did not know Eilzel was a homo.

Why did he need to behave in such a nasty way?
Why did Didge need to jump in and be nasty?