Racially abused - advice please.
Discussion
andy118run said:
thetrash said:
Chapelfield or Castle Mall?
Castle Mall.The offending gentleman left the mall via the entrance by the toilets onto Farmers Avenue.
s3fella said:
Hol said:
Can everybody pretend that they are verbally describing every world leader in this picture to somebody else over the telephone.
You cannot use any inappropriate words, but you must describe all of their unique features.
Manly You cannot use any inappropriate words, but you must describe all of their unique features.
, mental , annoying posh , Afro American leader of the free world, white ....
Edited by Rick101 on Monday 28th July 15:58
Whilst it all sounds rather unfortunate is it really that different to general swearing and abusive behaviour? I certainly don't condone such a menacing attitude between and man and a woman and the chap in question should of course accept the consequences of his actions however the "racist" card does get brandished way too early imho.
TX.
TX.
Terminator X said:
Whilst it all sounds rather unfortunate is it really that different to general swearing and abusive behaviour? I certainly don't condone such a menacing attitude between and man and a woman and the chap in question should of course accept the consequences of his actions however the "racist" card does get brandished way too early imho.
TX.
Maybe it does....but I don't think any one is playing the "racist card" here. What happened was racist. Technically it was a racially aggravated crime...if the victim perceives it to be so, it should be treated as such. TX.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Maybe it does....but I don't think any one is playing the "racist card" here. What happened was racist. Technically it was a racially aggravated crime...if the victim perceives it to be so, it should be treated as such.
I don't think the OP is playing the racist card here and it looks like his OH very much isn't as she was willing to ignore it but while his words were racist and his behaviour probably would be classified as assault I doubt it was technically a racially aggravated crime based on the definition that was posted earlier in the thread.Steve H said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
Maybe it does....but I don't think any one is playing the "racist card" here. What happened was racist. Technically it was a racially aggravated crime...if the victim perceives it to be so, it should be treated as such.
I don't think the OP is playing the racist card here and it looks like his OH very much isn't as she was willing to ignore it but while his words were racist and his behaviour probably would be classified as assault I doubt it was technically a racially aggravated crime based on the definition that was posted earlier in the thread.I would say that it was at the time. I would say that the word C**t was hostile? As is "i am going to punch you".
Racist card?! SMDH
I was called a monkey on my first day in a customer service job surely it had nothing to do with the colour of my skin. It is easy for a person who has had a free pass all their life to claim a recepient of racist abuse is playing the race card.
If I called someone a Jewish ct, would they be playing the holocaust card if they took offence?
I was called a monkey on my first day in a customer service job surely it had nothing to do with the colour of my skin. It is easy for a person who has had a free pass all their life to claim a recepient of racist abuse is playing the race card.
If I called someone a Jewish c
t, would they be playing the holocaust card if they took offence?Eclassy said:
Racist card?! SMDH
I was called a monkey on my first day in a customer service job surely it had nothing to do with the colour of my skin. It is easy for a person who has had a free pass all their life to claim a recepient of racist abuse is playing the race card.
If I called someone a Jewish ct, would they be playing the holocaust card if they took offence?
For once, I agree with you. People seem to be too eager to play the "playing the race card" card.I was called a monkey on my first day in a customer service job surely it had nothing to do with the colour of my skin. It is easy for a person who has had a free pass all their life to claim a recepient of racist abuse is playing the race card.
If I called someone a Jewish c
t, would they be playing the holocaust card if they took offence?Terminator X said:
Whilst it all sounds rather unfortunate is it really that different to general swearing and abusive behaviour? I certainly don't condone such a menacing attitude between and man and a woman and the chap in question should of course accept the consequences of his actions however the "racist" card does get brandished way too early imho.
TX.
Complaining about being called a black TX.
is not playing the racist card. It's reporting racism.Being called a
and then saying you were only called a because you were black may be playing the racist card. You might have been called a because you're a .Can you see the difference?
Mk3Spitfire said:
Steve H said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
Maybe it does....but I don't think any one is playing the "racist card" here. What happened was racist. Technically it was a racially aggravated crime...if the victim perceives it to be so, it should be treated as such.
I don't think the OP is playing the racist card here and it looks like his OH very much isn't as she was willing to ignore it but while his words were racist and his behaviour probably would be classified as assault I doubt it was technically a racially aggravated crime based on the definition that was posted earlier in the thread.I would say that it was at the time. I would say that the word C**t was hostile? As is "i am going to punch you".
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.28 said:
the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
this guy was apparently offensive anyway and very likely did not attack her because of her ethnicity.Anyhoo, I'm tired of saying that I think there probably was an offence caused and I'll be very happy if this guy did get dealt with so I'll let you carry on picking out the parts you like
.Eclassy said:
Racist card?! SMDH
I was called a monkey on my first day in a customer service job surely it had nothing to do with the colour of my skin. It is easy for a person who has had a free pass all their life to claim a recepient of racist abuse is playing the race card.
If I called someone a Jewish ct, would they be playing the holocaust card if they took offence?
How is any of that different to calling someone a Ginger I was called a monkey on my first day in a customer service job surely it had nothing to do with the colour of my skin. It is easy for a person who has had a free pass all their life to claim a recepient of racist abuse is playing the race card.
If I called someone a Jewish c
t, would they be playing the holocaust card if they took offence?? In The eyes of the law its massively different but in reality whats different? Just the word. The offence and distress caused could be exactly the same but they are treated totally differently.Edited by rb5er on Monday 28th July 20:49
Snowboy said:
It should be reported.
It was wrong.
However, just for the sake of discussion I'm going to take a slightly different perspective.
The wife's kids were playing on a toy but hadn't paid for it.
The new family wanted to pay.
Etiquette on these toys generally means the payers get priority.
Wife doesn't remove kids, an argument ensues.
At this point, all else being equal, I'm mostly on the side of the new family who want to pay for the toy.
The argument escalates a bit and then the new family drop the BC bomb.
Now, saying C in front of kids in a public place is a pretty poor show, adding a racial term into that is even worse.
There is a difference between abusing someone because they are black vs abusing someone for another reason and including their race in the insult.
It wasn't racially motivated abuse.
I wouldn't disagree with the point you make on etiquette - I sometimes find myself waiting to put money in these things for my son while other kids are having a free sit/play on these toys. I'm pretty laid back though and tend to wait a minute or 2 for them to get off rather than ask parents to remove their kid. The situation here was slightly different in that both kids were already sitting in the car together but that's by the by now.It was wrong.
However, just for the sake of discussion I'm going to take a slightly different perspective.
The wife's kids were playing on a toy but hadn't paid for it.
The new family wanted to pay.
Etiquette on these toys generally means the payers get priority.
Wife doesn't remove kids, an argument ensues.
At this point, all else being equal, I'm mostly on the side of the new family who want to pay for the toy.
The argument escalates a bit and then the new family drop the BC bomb.
Now, saying C in front of kids in a public place is a pretty poor show, adding a racial term into that is even worse.
There is a difference between abusing someone because they are black vs abusing someone for another reason and including their race in the insult.
It wasn't racially motivated abuse.
By way of an update, I would strongly advise anybody who ever wishes to report a crime in Norfolk to avoid the 'online report a crime' option on their website. Having reported this online on Saturday morning, it was finally logged (and I was allocated a ref/CAD number at 3pm this afternoon). Anyway, the lady in the control room appeared quite apologetic that this had taken more than 2 days to be logged. Apparently they are pretty busy today so an appointment has been made for tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday) for them to come out and take a statement from the missus.
Phil303 said:
When I first read the article and it was pointed out it took place in Norwich, I assumed it would have been Castle Mall. I know it's a 50/50 chance as Norwich only has 2 malls but you do get some sorts in Castle Mall. Plus Norwich has to be the most undiverse city in the UK. I feel apologetic for it sometimes.
I thought it would have been castle mall too, it does attract the scummers. Norwich is similar to other cities for being diverse in attitudes. It just lacks any large population group other than white British.Steve H said:
this guy was apparently offensive anyway and very likely did not attack her because of her ethnicity.
Anyhoo, I'm tired of saying that I think there probably was an offence caused and I'll be very happy if this guy did get dealt with so I'll let you carry on picking out the parts you like .
I'm sorry. I thought you'd have been able to work that part out all on your own. Clearly not so I'll break it down even further for you. For the purpose of the offence then...someone is guilty of the offence if at the time......demonstrates hostility...based on the victims membership of a racial group... with me so far?Anyhoo, I'm tired of saying that I think there probably was an offence caused and I'll be very happy if this guy did get dealt with so I'll let you carry on picking out the parts you like
.The act defines racial groups (s.28(4) if you really want to know) as a group of people defined by reference to race, COLOUR, nationality or ethnic or national origins.
The OP's other half was refered to as a "black c**t". Black is a colour. "c**t" and "i am going to punch you" I would suggest are evidence of hostility. These were said at the time.
Which bit are you refusing to accept?
Oh....and here's a wink back
ETA - if your argument is that the hostility was not based on the OP's OH's colour, I would argue that if this was the case, they wouldn't have bothered with the word "black" at all. Do you think when he refers to a Caucasian as a "c**t", he suffixes it with you "white"?
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Monday 28th July 23:30
rb5er said:
How is any of that different to calling someone a Ginger ? In The eyes of the law its massively different but in reality whats different?
History, and as a result of that history, the element of genuine threat.? In The eyes of the law its massively different but in reality whats different? Ginger people have not been murdered because of their hair colour. Stephen Lawrence probably would not have been murdered by a bunch a scumbags for being ginger. Or for being fat, or Welsh, or any other abuse that may have been leveled at him.
History means that abuse using words such as P*ki, ni**er, y*d and the like carry a far greater threat than fat, ginger or baldy. That's why it's different, and quite rightly so.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ginger people have not been murdered because of their hair colour.
History means that abuse using words such as P*ki, ni**er, y*d and the like carry a far greater threat than fat, ginger or baldy. That's why it's different, and quite rightly so.
No thats where you are wrong. Ginger people used to get burnt at the stake for their hair colour. And plenty have been killed because of issues started over hair colour. Perhaps have a read up about it.History means that abuse using words such as P*ki, ni**er, y*d and the like carry a far greater threat than fat, ginger or baldy. That's why it's different, and quite rightly so.
So why is that any different?
rb5er said:
No thats where you are wrong. Ginger people used to get burnt at the stake for their hair colour. And plenty have been killed because of issues started over hair colour. Perhaps have a read up about it.
Only if you have a read-up about scale and proportion.I can't think of too many ginger genocides, wars, ginger slavery or riots.
Mk3Spitfire said:
ETA - if your argument is that the hostility was not based on the OP's OH's colour, I would argue that if this was the case, they wouldn't have bothered with the word "black" at all. Do you think when he refers to a Caucasian as a "c**t", he suffixes it with you "white"?
It took you a while but yes that's exactly my agreement. Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Monday 28th July 23:30
Given the description of his earlier behaviour is it so hard to believe that this guy would fall out with anyone and then say the first thing that came into his tiny mind? He chose to attack her verbally, if she was fat he'd have called her a lardarse, if she was short he'd have called her a midget. He may well be racist, fatist and shortist but we don't have any reason to think that's why he attacked her.
And if he had called her "fat c**t" I would suggest the hostility was partly or wholly (notice the wording from the offence) motivated by the fact that she was fat. Clearly you know best, and the countless successful prosecutions for near identical incidents are wrong and should be withdrawn.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff