Clouseau meets Kafka

[turbobloke]

Was sent this recently and thought it was worth sharing...

A confused journalist said:

Among the morning post comes a letter from a Chief Inspector R Brough of N W Police. The Chief Inspector writes: "Dear Miss Pearson, I am writing to inform you that North Wales police has received a complaint following your appearance on BBC Question Time on 23rd February. The complainant states that he found your remarks (sic) "Little Welshies" offensive and belittling. North Wales police do not believe that your remarks were in contravention of the criminal law, but nevertheless, would like to make you aware of how they were perceived by a member of the public in North Wales." So, a few thoughts for this master sleuth and ace detective: a) I did not appear on Question Time on 23rd February b) I am Welsh and proud to be so. How likely is it that I would be guilty of inciting racial hatred against myself? c) DO you take this much care checking the facts in all your cases? d) What is the going rate of compensation for mistaken identity? Truly it is amazing to think of DCI Brough and the Caernarfon Thought Crimes Unit wasting public money by writing letters to 'make you aware of how your remarks were perceived'. Is this what our country has come to: a farce combining the talents of Franz Kafka and Inspector Clouseau?

Yes it is.
Trying very hard to find something to add here but failing.
Unfgbelievable.

[Tafia]

turbobloke said:

Was sent this recently and thought it was worth sharing... A confused journalist said: Among the morning post comes a letter from a Chief Inspector R Brough of N W Police. The Chief Inspector writes: "Dear Miss Pearson, I am writing to inform you that North Wales police has received a complaint following your appearance on BBC Question Time on 23rd February. The complainant states that he found your remarks (sic) "Little Welshies" offensive and belittling. North Wales police do not believe that your remarks were in contravention of the criminal law, but nevertheless, would like to make you aware of how they were perceived by a member of the public in North Wales." So, a few thoughts for this master sleuth and ace detective: a) I did not appear on Question Time on 23rd February b) I am Welsh and proud to be so. How likely is it that I would be guilty of inciting racial hatred against myself? c) DO you take this much care checking the facts in all your cases? d) What is the going rate of compensation for mistaken identity? Truly it is amazing to think of DCI Brough and the Caernarfon Thought Crimes Unit wasting public money by writing letters to 'make you aware of how your remarks were perceived'. Is this what our country has come to: a farce combining the talents of Franz Kafka and Inspector Clouseau? Yes it is. Trying very hard to find something to add here but failing. Unfgbelievable.

It has been reported that N Wales police also have a "Diversity Development Unit" at HQ which will allegedly take calls from members of the public who wish to report others for homophobic or racist remarks. It seems the "new" leftie definition of a racist remark is any remark which is perceived to be racist by anyone who hears it.

So, no matter how feeble- minded or sensitive or even vexatious a person is, we are told, (Daily Post report), their complaint will be logged and the subject of the complaint will not even know about it.

This begs the question , what are NWP going to do with this "information"?

[turbobloke]

Tafia said:

It has been reported that N Wales police also have a "Diversity Development Unit" at HQ...This begs the question , what are NWP going to do with this "information"?

It also begs the question, what the hell are they doing to deter and detect crime ffs

[XMG5]

[/quote]
It seems the "new" leftie definition of a racist remark is any remark which is perceived to be racist by anyone who hears it.

So, no matter how feeble- minded or sensitive or even vexatious a person is, we are told, (Daily Post report), their complaint will be logged and the subject of the complaint will not even know about it.
[/quote]

The person making the complaint doesn't even have to be a party to the conversation in which the offending racist words/terms are used. It is a racial incident if ANYONE thinks it is, even IF they are not the target of the 'attack'. Suffice to say anyone can make a complaint of racist behaviour even if the offender is totally unaware that their words have offended or even if there are no ethnic minorities present when the words are used.

[XMG5]

Also, when I asked, I was told that the Welsh are not an ethnic minority and are not protected under the legislation. We are not a minority for the purposes of the law as we are white as is the majority of the UK, FOR NOW anyway.

>> Edited by XMG5 on Friday 7th April 11:40

[mg6b]

Tafia said:

.... "new" leftie definition of a racist remark is any remark which is perceived to be racist by anyone who hears it.

"any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or by any other person"
This is an accepted definition of racist incident taken straight from the Lawrence enquiry!

It is nothing to do with leftie definition at all.

Tafia said:

So, no matter how feeble- minded or sensitive or even vexatious a person is, we are told, (Daily Post report), their complaint will be logged and the subject of the complaint will not even know about it.

The complaint will be logged and the suspect will be notified one way or another so they do not make the same mistake again. If it was not a mistake, then they may be prosecuted for the appropriate offences.

Tafia said:

This begs the question , what are NWP going to do with this "information"?

It will be recorded and filed (stored), should some other little slip of the toungue occur of a similar nature! That is how patterns of behaviour are evidenced





>> Edited by mg6b on Friday 7th April 12:00

[turbobloke]

Lawrence Inquiry Report said:

an accepted definition of a racist incident is etc etc

Total b0ll0x.

But you're quite right to give the correct source of the total b0ll0x mg6b

[mg6b]

turbobloke said:

Lawrence Inquiry Report said: an accepted definition of a racist incident is etc etc Total b0ll0x. But you're quite right to give the correct source of the total b0ll0x mg6b

It is not total bo11ox if you happen to genuinely be affected by such an incident or conduct. It also gets a quicker police response. Police have to (in theory) attend reports of racist incidents in a shorter time scale than a job that is not perceived to be a racist incident. All racist incident reports are upgraded to urgent attendance status rather than by appointment or routine attendance. Racist incidents should have a police response within 2 hours of the complaint (in my force).

Racist incidents such as "racially kicking a ball against the side wall of my house" are filtered out of the system by those of us who still maintain some grip on reality! Especially when the complainant lives in the end terrace with a large patch of grass surrounding the side of the house and there are no windows in the wall.

I am afraid that telling the officer attending that this is a racial incident because I am one of only 6 families living in the houses out of 10 addresses in the close who is from Pakistan does not indicate the ball thumping against the wall is actually done because of a racist nature or intent.

The ball thumping against the wall is because it is a nice place to have goal posts to stop the ball disappearing down the road when the kids play together.

Still, it got put to the top of the queue for attendance and got the required result from the complainant!

[turbobloke]

mg6b said:

It is not total bo11ox if you happen to genuinely be affected by such an incident or conduct.

Yes, I have, and yes, it is.

[HarryW]

Words fail me, the country is getting so skewered in its priorities it is frightening.
The fact I thought twice about even commenting on this thread is an indication of the genuine fear and marginlisation felt by normal law abiding citizens of the authorities .
The fear is that the 'thought police' seem to have taken over the asylum and our every act and word is judged. I thought eastern europe failed in its social experiment, quiet obviously I was wrong, they've all now joined the government and police forces of this country .
If it wasn't gettting so serious if would be laughable..............unfecking beleiveable .

[autismuk]

mg6b said:

turbobloke said: Lawrence Inquiry Report said: an accepted definition of a racist incident is etc etc Total b0ll0x. But you're quite right to give the correct source of the total b0ll0x mg6b It is not total bo11ox if you happen to genuinely be affected by such an incident or conduct. It also gets a quicker police response.

True, but it is a matter of proportionality and common sense.

Yesterday's example : the prosecution of a 10 year old for Racist remarks in a playground in Manchester.

The *reality* is that

(i) in the average primary school or secondary school, *let alone* one in Manchester, there are far worse crimes committed by the children to staff or other children every day which will be NFAed (unless the "racist" issue comes up), and this includes verbal abuse ; ever come across "Yer Mum" arguments for example ?

(ii) the Police are claiming to be short of resources and manpower. It would appear that they are only short of these things for "politically unpopular" crimes.

(iii) Lots of people are genuinely affected by burglaries, muggings and the like, but seem to have zero confidence in the Police Service dealing with them. There is some fair comment in that view.

.... soft targets - again.

I am aware that the BiB do not set Policing priorities. Whoever does frankly wants shooting.

Note: our local Police, who claim endlessly to be short on manpower and resources, are now giving out keyrings with pictures of their neighbourhood Police Officers embossed into plastic attached to them, in the hope that they will collect them. (I swear I am not making this up)


>> Edited by autismuk on Friday 7th April 13:08

>> Edited by autismuk on Friday 7th April 13:10

[Davi]

I'm always surprised at the amount of surprise with this sort of thing - it's simple really, how do the top bods (note - not the hard working bib) make good statistics? simple, ensure there are 1001 easy to solve, easy to punish crimes, sort them out, then proudly display your statistics simple, no need to actually pay money out re-inforcing our overworked bib at the base to actually do something about the crimes society care about when you can invent ones that every sane person on the planet couldn't give a monkeys about.

so tell me... my mate Paddy. He's Irish. If I call him Paddy, can I be reported by a bystander, who know's neither him or me, for racial hatred? I'd be a bit annoyed if that's the case, as I'd have to call him Rob, or Bill, or James. Which is stupid, because his name is Paddy...

[turbobloke]

autismuk said:

mg6b said: turbobloke said: Lawrence Inquiry Report said: an accepted definition of a racist incident is etc etc Total b0ll0x. But you're quite right to give the correct source of the total b0ll0x mg6b It is not total bo11ox if you happen to genuinely be affected by such an incident or conduct. It also gets a quicker police response. True, but it is a matter of proportionality and common sense.

With respect, not true, it's the emotional intelligence vs the real thing again, and the glandular stuff loses every time. If the proportionality and common sense angle really worked then DCI Brought would not have sent that daft letter. It would also behove the police, just occasionally, to DO SOME BL**DY INVESTIGATION before shooting themselves in the foot. That would be OK as it goes, but others get hit by the ricochet.

[mg6b]

Davi said:

so tell me... my mate Paddy. He's Irish. If I call him Paddy, can I be reported by a bystander, who know's neither him or me, for racial hatred?

You could be reported if that or another person (including your friend Paddy) perceived your remark to be racist or offensive.

Davi said:

I'd be a bit annoyed if that's the case, as I'd have to call him Rob, or Bill, or James. Which is stupid, because his name is Paddy...

Is his name Paddy as christened or is it in fact Patrick?
Has he just accepted this shortening of his name or does he want to be called Paddy?

Change of scenario. You have a black friend called Samuel. Everyone refers to him as Sambo. He has accepted this because he is black and his name is Samuel. He is not happy about the fact that he is referred to as Sambo but just accpets that for a quiet life, It is not really acceptable to him but he now just puts up with it!

Has anyone actually asked either Paddy or Samuel what they would like to be called?

I sometimes call people Wr. That is not acceptable and I do not ask them if they want to be called that. Some strangely agree with my opinion . At least that name does not generally stick to the person and I think about the consequences of my action before I do so not just becauise everyone else has been calling them Wr and they have just accepted it !

>> Edited by mg6b on Friday 7th April 13:43

[esselte]

If Samuel and Patrick don't mind being called Sambo and Paddy,what happens if someone totally unrelated to the conversation reports this as a "race crime"?Would the plod ask Sam and Patrick how they felt abouit it or would they just put a "mark" against the would be defendant's name?

[mg6b]

esselte said:

If Samuel and Patrick don't mind being called Sambo and Paddy,what happens if someone totally unrelated to the conversation reports this as a "race crime"?Would the plod ask Sam and Patrick how they felt abouit it or would they just put a "mark" against the would be defendant's name?

If they could find out who Patrick or Sam actually were, then they would do so.

Generally these incidents come in through telephone calls to Police enquiry centres. They are logged onto a numbered system and given a unique refernce number (URN) (CAD number) in sequence. If the call taker is told of an offence or even perceives in the case of this kind of report that there is a racist element within it, the call taker can be the person who perceives it to be a racist incident. It is then recorded as such on the daily incident log and it must be allocated an investigator.

If the investigator cannot find the alleged victims, then the incident is recorded in the Crime related incident format and then filed pending any further information coming to light. That goes into the National Crime recording stats.

The Police cannot just ignore that kind of call. The daily logs of all police forces are dip checked by the Audit commission and also by HMIC (Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary). Any incident such as the above that is cuffed at source is flagged for attention and difficult questions have to be answered if it has not been adequately dealt with.

[Davi]

esselte said:

If Samuel and Patrick don't mind being called Sambo and Paddy,what happens if someone totally unrelated to the conversation reports this as a "race crime"?Would the plod ask Sam and Patrick how they felt abouit it or would they just put a "mark" against the would be defendant's name?

exactly my point - Paddy was christened Patrick, but he introduced himself to me, and everyone that knows him, as Paddy. He hates the name patrick, he laughingly calls himself Paddy the paddy (I wonder if he could be prosecuted for race crimes against himself? )

How a bystander would have any knowledge of that or be in any position to make a decision on it? or the police for that matter? obviously they wouldn't.

I used to get called Gonzo at school because I have a largish nose, could I please report these people for the untold hurt they called me one day, I even got pushed over by a girl ( ) in the playground (she was much older than me) could I please have her arrested for Assault?

then again, dont bother, it would interupt the possible investigation into the thousands of pounds worth of property I had knicked from the car a few years back - the case where the police told me they couldn't attend, so just gave me a crime number to report to my insurers. Shame, what with us providing the full details and whereabouts of the criminals responsible, I'd thought that would have been an easy one for the statistics book.

(to bib reading, please note this is not an attack on you - I'm one of those rareties that still has utmost respect for what you do, just a rant at the system employing you)

[TangoAlpha]

mg6b said:

Police have to (in theory) attend reports of racist incidents in a shorter time scale than a job that is not perceived to be a racist incident. All racist incident reports are upgraded to urgent attendance status rather than by appointment or routine attendance. Racist incidents should have a police response within 2 hours of the complaint (in my force).

So, if I see someone stealing my car and phone 999 I ought to mention that the thief was foreign and shouted racial abuse at me as they drove away?

Thanks for the tip on getting a quicker response time

P.S. Would things be even quicker if I also mention that I was sure I saw them carrying a gun?

[turbobloke]

mg6b said:

If the call taker is told of an offence or even perceives in the case of this kind of report that there is a racist element within it, the call taker can be the person who perceives it to be a racist incident. It is then recorded as such on the daily incident log and it must be allocated an investigator.

That's where the problem lies - the whole edifice is total b0ll0x. Must do this and must do that and so-and-so perceives this. So what? Does anyone check to see if so-and-so is a clueless feckwit? One criterion for feckwittism is believing in this so-called social justice claptrap. You can, and I do so profoundly, believe in the fundamental and absolute equality of humanity's various shades and persuasions without signing up to this hogsh1t.

What a monumental waste of time and energy. There truly are some monumentally stupid people in power, and if they think this will do any good overall they are beyond stupid.

[Davi]

TangoAlpha said:

P.S. Would things be even quicker if I also mention that I was sure I saw them carrying a gun?

Nope - only if you said YOU were carrying a gun and were going to shoot the robbers with it