Dinner Party rules - beware

The Government will have their own ‘spies’ in apartment blocks next.

Amazon Alexa and Google assistant both fit the bill


Not in our house they don’t!

1 Like

Which is why we don’t and never will use them.

1 Like

Sadly no dinner parties and no paying guests Tory

Invite people to come and eat your food, and drink your home brew, and then argue, are you mad? :grinning:

1 Like

Having read the article it is clear that the headline is rather sensationalistic as is often the norm with the press.
Clearly there is no intent to criminalise reasoned discussion over the dinner table as the offence referred to is that of “using words or behaviour intended or likely to incite racial hatred”, where the important element is the intention or likelihood of inciting racial hatred.
At present, if for example four co-workers engage in a private conversation in a workplace office, and such words or behaviour as above are used, then the offence is complete. Were the same conversation between the same people to take place in the home of one of them, then the offence is not committed.
The Law Commission is therefore questioning why the location of such a conversation should dictate whether it is a crime or not.
It’s a tricky question, but before being too hasty with our decision making, perhaps we should consider whether words used by a clearly racially prejudiced speaker in someone’s home, to an audience of 20 invited guests, should have the location of their speech exempt that person from prosecution if they are clearly intending to stir up racial hatred.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines :slight_smile:

1 Like

Exactly Matt - I didn’t read the article (I don’t even click through to Daily Mail articles, as even this helps finance them, by adding to the statistics they present to advertisers, etc) - but my first thought was ‘just another attempt to propagate the ‘culture war’ right-wing extremists want to use to distract people from what’s really happening’.

1 Like

We were chatting at work the other day about various things as you do. My colleague went for her break and two of the things we had discussed popped up in related adds on her phone.One she had never searched,more concerning the other she had never heard of until we were all talking about an hour before. Her phone had been in her pocket during the chatting

If they are so racially biased they would not have been invited in the first place.
Also no Brexiteers invited here!

We have friends who have different opinions to us on a number of subjects. And sometimes the debates are very heated! But never personal attacks, just the ponts of view…

So yes, one couple we socialise with vote for Marine Le Pen but that doesn’t mean they are not welcome in our house (since we know no english people in this area that’s the nearest I can get to a Brexiteer). I dislike the fact that humans can’t remember that above all we are all human, and everything else is secondary.


Hear Hear Jane

Surely non racially prejudiced people can have a conversation about racial prejudice though.

1 Like

Of course they can, but they are not so likely to be offensive.

I think we are in danger of drifting away from the core of the matter which is whether the location of where words or behaviour intended or likely to incite racial hatred are used should dictate if a criminal offence is committed or not.
The words themselves may not be offensive, and indeed there are those who can be very polite in their intent to incite racial hatred. Whether the words used are offensive or not, or whether those words cause offense or not, is not the matter in question, but rather it is the intent of the person who utters those words that is the crux of the matter, and such remains the case even if they fail in their endeavour.

1 Like

So if the words cannot be construed as offensive, how do you know what is going on in the mind of the speaker?

Establishing mental intent is never an easy thing to do. Many things have to be taken together as a whole picture, such as the circumstances in which the words were used, the other people present, the entire content of the conversation including the contributions of others, the surrounding political and social circumstances of the era, and crucially, whether 12 jurors are going to be convinced of the intent of the offender having regard to all the circumstances.


You can never know precisely and completely what was in the mind of the speaker, you can only deduce from within your own frame of reference what may have been in her mind, as well as what you think she said.

And you must always be open to the possibility that your deduction could be wrong, to include being fatally misjudged.

As am l in deducing your own thinking on the topic. Think “Devil’s advocacy”?