Hate Crime?

[AJS-]

I've read this story on multiple sources and can't find anything that I would call hateful

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-08-05/in-the-...

But according to Breitbart police refused to even release what was posted

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/08/uk-man-...

Are they allowed to withold this? If so it seems like an incredibly sinister law, where people can be convicted of a hate crime yet the state does not have to explain to the public what exactly was said that was deemed hateful.

[Some Gump]

Well it's kind of obvious. If what he said was massively offensive, they're not wanting to broadcast it en masse.

[davepoth]

Looks like he pleaded guilty anyway, so there was no need to read the comments out in court.

[AJS-]

I can understand why the paper wouldn't print it but surely it must be in the public domain?

[Trabi601]

Stop reading that right wing nonsense from Breitbart.

It'll make your life much less stressful.

[radambc]

It seems that if you offend muslim sensibilities, you end up in court.
If you offend Christian sensibilites, no one gives two hoots.
In effect the ultimate goal of global jihad (worldwide imposition of sharia) is being enacted by our own police and judiciary.

[FredClogs]

Trabi601 said:

Stop reading that right wing nonsense from Breitbart.

It'll make your life much less stressful.

^ This and also...

I'm always torn on these sorts of free speech issues, if you're not targetting an individual and seeking to start a conversation or engage in public debate then the internet is the natural place these days and for many that means facebook, but this cheese dick did post his comments on the Police's facebook page... you know, I mean seriously, have a word with yourself. Also having a muclim mother in law and sister in law sort of implies his missus is at least at risk of flipping to Islam and presumably at least some of his 7 kids, doesn't it? I'm starting to think jail might not be the best place for this fella or his familly, maybe sending him back to school would serve society better?

[AJS-]

Trabi
Breitbart didn't make it up. It's on other sites too.


Fred
No jail, he "only" got community service, and presumably a criminal record.

He posted it on a presumably public Facebook page. The police could have deleted it or banned him from their page.

A criminal prosecution seems a bit strong unless he was directly exhorting people to go and torch a mosque or something. But if we can't even know what he was prosecuted for saying then it doesn't seem like justice to me.


As for his mother in law and sister in law being Muslim, that suggests his wife is ex-Muslim or a practicing Muslim who married him despite him not being a Muslim. Either of which is quite frowned on by many Muslims. Which does make you wonder if he's made some enemies otherwise.


However, I know some people think I'm always "banging on about Muslims" etc, but that's not really the point here.

A simple legal question: Is it possible to find out what he posted?

[Some Gump]

AJS- said:

Trabi


A simple legal question: Is it possible to find out what he posted?

A simple human question: The bloke is clearly a bellend. Why do you want to know his opinion?

[AJS-]

An equally simple answer, because being a bellend in the opinion of Some Gump isn't a criminal offence.

I want to know what is deemed to be a criminal opinion.

[JJ55]

I think the Katie Hopkins article in daily mail today published what he said?

[radambc]

AJS- said:

As for his mother in law and sister in law being Muslim, that suggests his wife is ex-Muslim or a practicing Muslim who married him despite him not being a Muslim. Either of which is quite frowned on by many Muslims. Which does make you wonder if he's made some enemies otherwise.

Yes, very much frowned upon.
Muhammad put it most succinctly himself when he said, "Whoever changes his muslim religion, kill him". (Sahih Bukhari).

[anonymous-user]

AJS- said:

An equally simple answer, because being a bellend in the opinion of Some Gump isn't a criminal offence.

I want to know what is deemed to be a criminal opinion.

Here is the act of parliament - they are normally written in nice clear English.



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents

[Trabi601]

JJ55 said:

I think the Katie Hopkins article in daily mail today published what he said?

See my comments on Breitbart.

[Trabi601]

Looks like he's a Britain First knuckle dragger. That's should be criminal offence in itself...

(Yes, I know, I don't actually want to make membership of a political movement illegal, no matter how offensive it may be - that's a very short and slippery slope to Germany in the 1930s)

[JJ55]

Trabi601 said:

JJ55 said:

I think the Katie Hopkins article in daily mail today published what he said?

See my comments on Breitbart.

Ok not sure why you're having a pop at me as its uncalled for. I actually read both left & right wing papers in the morning, saw this post tonight & remembered reading the article this morning so thought I would answer the ops question.

[Some Gump]

AJS- said:

An equally simple answer, because being a bellend in the opinion of Some Gump isn't a criminal offence.

I want to know what is deemed to be a criminal opinion.

Pity, isn't it? If Gump was in power, there'd be far, far fewer MLM's on the road..

Anyway, if it's the free speech angle you're looking for, or the "I don't like how British values are being eroded by the PC brigade only serving perceived minorities, not the majority", I can sympethise. I just hate to think a pleb like this becomes a poster boy for anything - just like I can't get that "#blacklifematters" started with a blatant criminal, or how those stty riots started with Mark Duggan. It just devalues whatever point people are trying to make when the poster boy is some kind of utter lowlife.

[AJS-]

The legislation is clearly written enough (though horrible in it's own right IMO), but it doesn't say which part of it he broke or show how. It doesn't even say the nature of it. Did he make a direct threat or accusation against someone?

[klootzak]

AJS- said:

Are they allowed to withold this? If so it seems like an incredibly sinister law, where people can be convicted of a hate crime yet the state does not have to explain to the public what exactly was said that was deemed hateful.

As a general principal, yes they (the CPS) are. As with evidence presented in any other case.

"The statutory duty of disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996 ceases once a prosecution has been concluded (save for circumstances where we become aware of material which might render a conviction unsafe), see Section 7A CPIA 1996 and paragraph 72 of the Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure."

From ... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/disclosure_of_t...

Not sure I'd be inclined to give the posts to Breitbart anyway.

k

[Some Gump]

AJS- said:

The legislation is clearly written enough (though horrible in it's own right IMO), but it doesn't say which part of it he broke or show how. It doesn't even say the nature of it. Did he make a direct threat or accusation against someone?

If the legislation is clearly written, then you know what he said: Something in the "verboten" category...