Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
very PC take I know
It's a B.B.C. article about England (specifically with the Northumbia Police) with a passing mention of Norway. They won't be false reports.
The U.K's. freedom of speech protections aren't a part of their constitutional law (ergo, rules that establish the constituency of government and the extent of its authority over its citizenry, whether written or not). It's part of the human rights act of 1998[www.legislation.gov.uk] and much more restrictive. It's also written with express yet vague wiggle room for restrictions and limitations, more akin to the provisions found in the French Declarations of the Rights of Men than the U.S. constitution's first amendment.
The net result of making freedom of speech part of mere statutory law and not absolute in nature is that it basically does not exist in any real capacity, because parliament may override it at any time. and there are hate speech laws in the U.K. that could render any number of insults actionable offenses. Hate speech laws that would be ruled unconstitutional as freedom of speech violations in the U.S.A. could be actionable offenses in the U.K.[www.theweek.co.uk], so throwing out certain slurs could actually end up getting people not only arrested but convicted if it comes to the attention of the police.
Saying those kinds of things on social media carries the same weight as saying it in person so the same should also apply to online gaming.
Do they want to go tell the sexual assault victims that they can’t be bothered to deal with them as they are dealing with this? They don’t even currently have enough police to do the job they are paid to do in the first place. So now they are simply stealing a wage and not working for that area…
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/fewer-crimes-lead-to-charge-in-northumbria/ar-AA16U6GM
https://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crime/one-in-20-crimes-result-in-charge-or-summons-4007048
x amount of money allocated every month to "unique police alert system"
what do they do ?
nothing.
...
absolutely nothing.
I have called the police for an insane neighbor's kid making threats at me and they told me they didn't want to get involved and I should have a third party contact the home owner so I wouldn't have to approach the house and get tackled by the nutcase. I say kid but he is around 30 with his own kids in the basement now.
Well private police force here, if they get involved they want to see a profit so calling them is a double edged sword too. But I felt I had no other recourse with the death threat..
Nope didn't want to get involved. Call them back after I am dead or something ha ha.
Now if I was famous or something ...
In their perspective you're the nutcase calling the police before a crime has been made where you really believed that you were in danger that you attacked in selfdefense. Then court has to decide if you were in danger or if there is a foundation why you were willing to sacrifice your freedom to save yourself.
People who are really scared would fight for their lives and in the court point of view the financial damages caused by the hooligan need to be journal every day. Everything the hooligan do, how many days since the last attack and what you did that day is all evidence. And what it did to you financially. They can't value your emotions. The court and the law is to protect the ruler from mobs causing fiscal damages. You had to act to survive. Companies act to self preserve their survival and in court they're accused by their competitor who try to kill the company. There's always a motive.
Overall, I'm pretty okay with the idea of the owner of what is effectively a communications network liasing with police (who can then liase with other police forces worldwide) in the event of extremely threatening behaviour that crosses legal boundaries.
I am also okay with the idea of a police force having staff that can give advice to locally based businesses. I mean, they do that a lot.
I'm less okay with Northumbria Police being underfunded, understaffed, directionless, and focusing more on reassuring people that they're doing something instead of actually doing something. But I suppose it's easier to spare a deskie than it is for them to put officers out to arrest the entirety of Byker. Sorry Byker. You're just easy to blame.
Haway man. Why aye. Etc.