Everyone is so offended.

[Ridgemont]

Bigends said:

snuffy said:

waynedear said:

Just been watching the man speaking about this on YouTube.
Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?

Yes. If I say it's a hate crime then it's a hate crime.

No theyre hate incidents - not crimes. Theyre not recorded as crimes, just merely a record made of whats been alleged. Theres no formal action to be taken as no crime has occured.

I may be due a whoosh parrot but the point of this case was that the police did take formal action?

Clive Collman was nattering about this on bbc24 and amazingly there were 23,000 of these recorded incidents last year...

[Bigends]

Ridgemont said:

Bigends said:

snuffy said:

waynedear said:

Just been watching the man speaking about this on YouTube.
Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?

Yes. If I say it's a hate crime then it's a hate crime.

No theyre hate incidents - not crimes. Theyre not recorded as crimes, just merely a record made of whats been alleged. Theres no formal action to be taken as no crime has occured.

I may be due a whoosh parrot but the point of this case was that the police did take formal action?

Clive Collman was nattering about this on bbc24 and amazingly there were 23,000 of these recorded incidents last year...

Recording and taking action are two different things. The idea of recording these is to monitor matters to establish whether or not they begin to escalate to actual crimes. Action taken on this one was totally over the top. Going to his workplace was totally out of order - this was always a no no even in the case of arrests unless they needed to be done urgently or for some serious matter. Then to threaten him with potential prosecution where he hadnt committed any offence - again not on. It may not be the officers fault - no doubt he was ordered round to see the bloke as the upper echelons of the Police are sh*t scared to be seen not to be taking action over matters even when they have no grounds to do so

[Agammemnon]

Mojooo said:

Evidence that it was said or evidence that what was said was a hate crime? Presumably the latter is down for the Police to interpret and decide.

Forunately it is not down to the police to decide whether a crime has been committed- that decision is for the courts.

[Mojooo]

Agammemnon said:

Mojooo said:

Evidence that it was said or evidence that what was said was a hate crime? Presumably the latter is down for the Police to interpret and decide.

Forunately it is not down to the police to decide whether a crime has been committed- that decision is for the courts.

I think the context of his tweet was what was required the Police to investigate (i.e would they look into something just because you say it was said or whether you need to prove it was said and what it meant).

[Bigends]

Mojooo said:

Agammemnon said:

Mojooo said:

Evidence that it was said or evidence that what was said was a hate crime? Presumably the latter is down for the Police to interpret and decide.

Forunately it is not down to the police to decide whether a crime has been committed- that decision is for the courts.

I think the context of his tweet was what was required the Police to investigate (i.e would they look into something just because you say it was said or whether you need to prove it was said and what it meant).

I'm sure they saw the Twitter post that Harry Miller had merely liked and not originally posted - the judge has ruled that they were wrong to confront him over it though were correct in recording it in line with current guidance . The current guidance is also up for challenge

Edited by Bigends on Friday 14th February 17:36

Edited by Bigends on Friday 14th February 19:13

[XCP]

Speaking to this chap at his place of work seems to have become a bit of an issue in this case.

When I was a PC I often used to visit places of work looking for people. Normally accompanied by the hilarious offerings of ' It's him your looking for...'

Has this become a no-no these days?

[Agammemnon]

Bigends said:

the judge has ruled that they were wrong to confront him over it

A representative of Humberside police has stated that lessons will be learned, so all will be fine.

[Bigends]

XCP said:

Speaking to this chap at his place of work seems to have become a bit of an issue in this case.

When I was a PC I often used to visit places of work looking for people. Normally accompanied by the hilarious offerings of ' It's him your looking for...'

Has this become a no-no these days?

It always was, unless we were after them for something serious or urgent. Why would you go to someones place of work - that could cause all sorts of consequences

We'd just do an early knock and get them before or as they left.

Possibly no longer the same or no guidance given

[Not-The-Messiah]

waynedear said:

Just been watching the man speaking about this on YouTube.
Is it correct that a hate crime report needs no evidence just a persons words ?

The word Gammon comes to mind with this the people who use the word are the sort who will be disappointed with this verdict. But the same sort who are totally ignorant of the words that they use. If someone comes along and says gommon is racists and offensive they just dismiss it. Hypocritical idiots.

[Mr Whippy]

Bigends said:

Mojooo said:

Agammemnon said:

Mojooo said:

Evidence that it was said or evidence that what was said was a hate crime? Presumably the latter is down for the Police to interpret and decide.

Forunately it is not down to the police to decide whether a crime has been committed- that decision is for the courts.

I think the context of his tweet was what was required the Police to investigate (i.e would they look into something just because you say it was said or whether you need to prove it was said and what it meant).

I'm sure they saw the Twitter post that Harry Miller had merely liked and not originally posted - the judge has ruled that they were wrong to confront him over it though were correct in recording it in line with current guidance . The current guidance is also up for challenge

Edited by Bigends on Friday 14th February 17:36

Edited by Bigends on Friday 14th February 19:13

Isn’t that the most insidious and chilling bit?

It’s not a crime...
But you’ll be on the ‘wrong-think’ database.

The ‘chilling effect’ is stronger than ever while it’s policy to record these non-crimes.

[Bigends]

Mr Whippy said:

Bigends said:

Mojooo said:

Agammemnon said:

Mojooo said:

Evidence that it was said or evidence that what was said was a hate crime? Presumably the latter is down for the Police to interpret and decide.

Forunately it is not down to the police to decide whether a crime has been committed- that decision is for the courts.

I think the context of his tweet was what was required the Police to investigate (i.e would they look into something just because you say it was said or whether you need to prove it was said and what it meant).

I'm sure they saw the Twitter post that Harry Miller had merely liked and not originally posted - the judge has ruled that they were wrong to confront him over it though were correct in recording it in line with current guidance . The current guidance is also up for challenge

Edited by Bigends on Friday 14th February 17:36

Edited by Bigends on Friday 14th February 19:13

Isn’t that the most insidious and chilling bit?

It’s not a crime...
But you’ll be on the ‘wrong-think’ database.

The ‘chilling effect’ is stronger than ever while it’s policy to record these non-crimes.

Agreed, these non crime reports can be recorded for something as simple as a free newspaper delivery boy delivering to every house except the asian family at number 52. A neighbour takes umbridge and reports this stating she thinks this the delivery boy is only doing this because the tenants are asian - this would be recorded as anon crime racist incident. It may well be that hes scared of their dog and doesnt deliver there, but too late - its on the books. An extreme example I know but you get the gist.

[andy_s]

Just going out on a limb, but this whole set-up [hate speech/crime/non-crime] along with the subjectivity aspect is probably one of the main factors which has led to the 'huge surge in hate crime' recently that isn't, constantly brought out as a prop by activists and repeated by the well and not so well meaning 'woke' commentators.

[In case anyone is recording my hate crime/think, note 'activists' by which I mean the fringe ones that are so far down the rabbit hole I'm sure they believe it themselves, not the normal people].

In fact, I'm not even sure I'm in a position to say/think that, as now there's a 'thing' about banning books that are written by inappropriate people who have 'culturally appropriated the non-lived experience'. Something like 'Frankenstein' by Mary Shelley for example, who wasn't even a real monster.

I shall turn myself in, or identify as whatever I have to...

[Jazzy Jag]

Who do I hand myself in to?

[Composer62]

JagLover said:

Composer62 said:

How can you reconcile the judgement in this case with the recent judgement in the Maya Forstater case ?

They seem to directly contradict each other do they not ?

Ones an employment tribunal and ones the high court. Also one is the actions of an employer and the other the actions of the police.

I wasn't so much thinking of the settings but the different conclusions reached by the different kinds of judges. In the Miller case his solicitor, claimed the ruling meant it was “entirely acceptable to hold the view and communicate that a trans woman is not a woman”.

However in the Forstater case the employment judge ruled there was no legal right to question whether a transgender person is a man or woman and decided Ms Forstater’s view was "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”.

They just seem contradictory to me.

[Mr Whippy]

Just listening to some Chinese restaurant owner whinging on TV earlier due to a drop in business... like it’s racist because they’re Chinese and people are staying away.

OR, you dhead, because you probably have Chinese relatives, and being New Year you might have had them visiting, or possibly Wuhan refugees staying with you... and ~ 50% of your customers are worried.


I’d not be surprised to find out regular customers who haven’t been going, and thus judged as ‘racist’, are now on this register as racists
This legislation needs ripping up.
I’d rather see rampant racism that we can tackle head on, than this subversive crap and ideology of victim hood prevail that is more damaging to society.

[Jazzy Jag]

So, the guy in question simply "liked" someone else's tweet and that was enough for plod to visit him at work?

FFS with my fat thumbs and the Facebook mobile app, I have accidentally liked loads of stuff while using my left thumb to scroll up.

Utter nonsense.

[mikal83]

The most people that get "offended" are usually aholes on several forums on PH, mainly the trump one.

[8.4L 154]

Jazzy Jag said:

So, the guy in question simply "liked" someone else's tweet and that was enough for plod to visit him at work?

FFS with my fat thumbs and the Facebook mobile app, I have accidentally liked loads of stuff while using my left thumb to scroll up.

Utter nonsense.

No, there were 31 tweets included as part of the police report and recorded as a hate incident (non crime) The one which was considered closest to criminality was a retweet though.

[anonymous-user]

The High Court's decision is excellent, and obviously right. The Employment Tribunal decision in the Forstater case is rubbish, and likely to be reversed on appeal. The magistrate's decision in Scottow is also rubbish, and likely to be reversed on appeal.

Kudos to Mr Justice Knowles for an excellent judgment.

[anonymous-user]

Back story: Stonewall used to be the sane and credible voice of the LGB lobby. Stonewall has been hijacked by fanatical male trans activists (including straight men pretending to be lesbian women). Stonewall has captured elements of the police, the CPS. the education system, and the Scottish Government. Sensible groups like the LGB Alliance and Women's Place UK are attempting to fight back and redress the balance.