Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss for a mob

[anonymous-user]

I'd be surprised if it was GBH. The injuries don't seem anywhere near serious enough.

The Guardian states, 'The boys have been charged with an aggravated hate crime under the Public Order Act'.

There are no aggravated hate crimes under the POA, but something like affray would likely cover the conduct.

[anonymous-user]

Why sort of sentences could these young men expect?

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

Finlandia said:

Interesting things start to happen when an individual from a protected category attacks another individual from another protected category, because of the reason they are protected.

Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.

And right on cue....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...

https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...

That, on the face of it, is proving the opposite of what Finlandia has written.

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

La Liga said:

BlackLabel said:

Finlandia said:

Interesting things start to happen when an individual from a protected category attacks another individual from another protected category, because of the reason they are protected.

Gay asylum seeker threatened and attacked by religious asylum seekers in Swedish asylum centre, court says it's not a hate crime.

And right on cue....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim...

https://twitter.com/YusufJP_/status/11552051780663...

That, on the face of it, is proving the opposite of what Finlandia has written.

We shall see, once it goes to court. That is, if the woman can be identified.

The police in Sweden investigated the above crime as a hate crime too, the court didn't agree though.

Obviously I can only read the bits which are translated, but where does it say it wasn’t a hate crime because they people who committed the offence did it because of religious beliefs etc?

The part that is translated says the motive couldn’t be proven which suggests an evidential issue.

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

It doesn't say that the people who committed the offence did it because of religious beliefs, that would be odd or racist, or something. What it says is that the gay man had been pushed around and screamed at on a daily basis, the assailants had been expressing their hatred for gay people in general and for this gay man in particular. Then finally one day he was beat by the same guys who had been at him everyday before that.

If that is not evidence enough of it being a hate crime, then what is? The main assailant admitted to abusing the victim, but only because of a dispute regarding the seating at the dinner table, the court chose to believe the assailant.

Who knows? The evidential threshold is high so somethings may not be proven.

When you wrote this I assumed you knew something more specific and were able to rule out any other possibilities:

Finlandia said:

Interesting things start to happen when an individual from a protected category attacks another individual from another protected category, because of the reason they are protected.

[anonymous-user]

Without seeing the evidence (or there being an appeal or something else official which states that to be the case) I’m not sure how you can conclude that.

Not that it’s relevant to here in any event.

[anonymous-user]

Alleged perpetrators appeared in court today

Trial to commence end of Nov

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49421...

[anonymous-user]

They've been charged with a non-imprisonable public order offence which will cover the homophobic conduct.

The other offences carry theoretical prison sentences, but there's no way teenagers are getting detained for relatively minor matters.

[anonymous-user]

hyphen said:

They live in central London and were stealing cards and handbags, so social housing types. I imagine at least one will have multiple previous interactions with the police and courts, wouldn't that count?

Previous certainly counts, but it's rare for youths to be sentenced to custody.

[anonymous-user]

No one can defend the males for what they did. Clearly out for trouble. They are scum and are right to be sentenced.

But why not just exit the top of the bus and move away from the situation? When she attacked she freely moved past the closest two youths to attack the other so there was nothing stopping them both from leaving.

Yes, why should they have to leave but there are times a sensible head is better than resorting to violence.