Discussion
Racially aggravated offences are recorded under the crime and disorder act
The counting rules state
An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of Sections 29 to 32 if-
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender
demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or
presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or
religious group based on their membership of those groups.
The counting rules state
An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of Sections 29 to 32 if-
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender
demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or
presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or
religious group based on their membership of those groups.
Mk3Spitfire said:
9mm said:
Thanks for admitting you were wrong to imply that the Public Order Act 1986 and civil laws covering defamation and slander made and make offending someone illegal.
Like most low ranking coppers you have a pretty hopeless grasp of the law.
I didn't imply anythjng of the sort. Try spending your time reading posts instead of trying to think up insults. I never mentioned offending, I mentioned harassment alarm and distress. Like most low ranking coppers you have a pretty hopeless grasp of the law.
You also have no idea what rank I hold.
It's obvious to anyone that you hold a very junior rank.
9mm said:
I asked since when offending someone became illegal and you replied citing the Public Order Act 1986 and the civil laws covering defamation and slander. It's all quoted in the thread and no amount of wriggling will get you off the hook.
It's obvious to anyone that you hold a very junior rank.
Again, you are showing a lack of any real argument, so I'll waste no more time on you.It's obvious to anyone that you hold a very junior rank.
I spoke of HAD which is covered by the POA. You brought in your offending argument (I imagine through your own, understandable, lack of knowledge). I identified you were being pedantic and humoured you. Anyone reading this can see you are the only person here to bring in the "offending" argument. You can also keep your petty insults to the playground, as even at my rank, I have heard a lot worse from toddlers.
Nigel Worc's said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
Never said "offending" someone was. Please conceded you're splitting hairs.
So if it isn't offence, how did it alarm or distress the poor 'ickle security guard ?Someone is taking the piss here, and I don't think it is the chap who said he wasn't Muslim.
I actually think it is a bit of a farce, this racism stuff, if it decends to this level.
As a Constable I'd expect you to identify that.
Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
mybrainhurts said:
This "distress or alarm" crap is wide open to vindictive abuse. Remember the motorist who had two police cars round to arrest him for putting two fingers up to a speed camera operator, who crumbled into a state of anguish and distress at the sight of this gesture?
Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
I agree with you to some extent. It is wide open to abuse. As are the procedures under the Harrasment Act. They were never meant to cover some of the things that they are now being asked to cover. But untik new guidelines come in from the HO, officers hands are, to some extent, tied.Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
Mk3Spitfire said:
mybrainhurts said:
This "distress or alarm" crap is wide open to vindictive abuse. Remember the motorist who had two police cars round to arrest him for putting two fingers up to a speed camera operator, who crumbled into a state of anguish and distress at the sight of this gesture?
Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
I agree with you to some extent. It is wide open to abuse. As are the procedures under the Harrasment Act. They were never meant to cover some of the things that they are now being asked to cover. But untik new guidelines come in from the HO, officers hands are, to some extent, tied.Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
Mk3Spitfire said:
mybrainhurts said:
This "distress or alarm" crap is wide open to vindictive abuse. Remember the motorist who had two police cars round to arrest him for putting two fingers up to a speed camera operator, who crumbled into a state of anguish and distress at the sight of this gesture?
Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
I agree with you to some extent. It is wide open to abuse. As are the procedures under the Harrasment Act. They were never meant to cover some of the things that they are now being asked to cover. But untik new guidelines come in from the HO, officers hands are, to some extent, tied.Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
How's about unstitching the whole sorry mess and everybody growing a thick skin?
mybrainhurts said:
Yes. Here we have the unacceptable face of justice.
How's about unstitching the whole sorry mess and everybody growing a thick skin?
The problem is that some people deserve to be dealt with for these offences. Unfortunately others see this and want a piece of the action. They then see it as a great injustice should they not have the same response. How's about unstitching the whole sorry mess and everybody growing a thick skin?
I used to work in a store where a woman claimed she was threatened and thrown out by staff for eating a cookie in the cafe. It was all over the newspapers and even appeared in the missing words round of Have I Got News For You.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398/Ma...
In reality she and her family were picnicking in the cafe on stuff bought from shops and bakeries all round the town centre and were extremely rude when staff asked them politely to only consume in the cafe what they'd bought there. It's VAT law that prevents the cafe allowing them to eat food purchased elsewhere in there, not just awkwardness. Needless to say it was a completely different perspective to the truth that appeared in the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398/Ma...
In reality she and her family were picnicking in the cafe on stuff bought from shops and bakeries all round the town centre and were extremely rude when staff asked them politely to only consume in the cafe what they'd bought there. It's VAT law that prevents the cafe allowing them to eat food purchased elsewhere in there, not just awkwardness. Needless to say it was a completely different perspective to the truth that appeared in the Daily Mail.
iwantagta said:
Andehh said:
OAP directly and obviously publicly insinuated Muslims are all would bombers, mass murders.
Did he really?Or did he insinuate that there was no point getting him to take his shoes off as he wasn't a Muslim hence far less likely to be a suicide bomber.
Mk3Spitfire said:
mybrainhurts said:
This "distress or alarm" crap is wide open to vindictive abuse. Remember the motorist who had two police cars round to arrest him for putting two fingers up to a speed camera operator, who crumbled into a state of anguish and distress at the sight of this gesture?
Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
I agree with you to some extent. It is wide open to abuse. As are the procedures under the Harrasment Act. They were never meant to cover some of the things that they are now being asked to cover. But untik new guidelines come in from the HO, officers hands are, to some extent, tied.Where is the law that protects us from such abuse? Nowhere, I think.
Red Devil said:
Naughty: you must not contradict Andehh. He was clearly present when the incident took place. He saw it all, heard what the OAP said, and knew the meaning and intent behind the words used.
I'm hardly making any untenable leaps of faith? Assumption it was a Muslim guard that was offended, and that "it's not like I'm muslim" was said in a sarcy, nasty manner to said guard. Andehh said:
Red Devil said:
Naughty: you must not contradict Andehh. He was clearly present when the incident took place. He saw it all, heard what the OAP said, and knew the meaning and intent behind the words used.
I'm hardly making any untenable leaps of faith? Assumption it was a Muslim guard that was offended, and that "it's not like I'm muslim" was said in a sarcy, nasty manner to said guard. It's a reasonable assumption to infer he was suggesting that Muslims = terrorists with his comment. It's more of a leap to assume the security officer were of a particular faith. He could have said it to whoever.
There could be more to it than is being reported, naturally.
"Humour" is about the right time and place. Airport security is not the best forum.
There could be more to it than is being reported, naturally.
"Humour" is about the right time and place. Airport security is not the best forum.
Rs2oo said:
9mm said:
Question for you. Is is acceptable to make any jokes about Islam?
Q. How does an Islam joke start ?A. By looking over your shoulder first.
The answer IMO is yes, it is acceptable but in a group of like-minded friends and out of the earshot of anyone who it may offend.
La Liga said:
It's a reasonable assumption to infer he was suggesting that Muslims = terrorists with his comment. It's more of a leap to assume the security officer were of a particular faith. He could have said it to whoever.
There could be more to it than is being reported, naturally.
"Humour" is about the right time and place. Airport security is not the best forum.
I'm not trying to pick an argument but is it really a reasonable assumption that he was suggesting muslims = terrorists? I'd have thought it was more a failed attempt to make a joke that the only people that routinely remove their shoes as part of a ritual are muslims. He wasn't a muslim so why should he? Having said that, we all know why shoes are inspected and the fact remains that muslims seem to have been the ones doing all the blowing up of things and people.There could be more to it than is being reported, naturally.
"Humour" is about the right time and place. Airport security is not the best forum.
As I said earlier, there is no sense of humour at airport security - unless they are the ones making the jokes.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff