Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss for a mob
Discussion
Not much to add to this other than it is a very shocking attack.
BBC News - Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss on London bus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48555...
BBC News - Gay couple beaten for refusing to kiss on London bus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48555...
tleefox said:
Ok, I'll bite and I'll caveat it by saying that if their account of what has happened is true, then it is terrible and has no place in modern society.
But something about this incident and how it is being reported don't sit right with me - one of those "feels like there's more to it than we're being told" cases.
More than likely I'm wrong, but that's my opinion at the moment.
You'd be amazed what people do in a mob and others will watch.But something about this incident and how it is being reported don't sit right with me - one of those "feels like there's more to it than we're being told" cases.
More than likely I'm wrong, but that's my opinion at the moment.
Saw an Indian woman being abused on the tube a few years back by a group and no one did a thing.
Well other than me, I went and sat with her and talked to her and basically showed the a
holes abusing her she wasn't on her own.It probably helped that I'm 6'3" but still amazed no one else did a thing
Piha said:
Go on then, provide something that backs up your claim that the blonde women started the physical violence and shows the 2 women deserved a beating from a group of men who could have walked away from the violence the blonde women were giving the men.
Perhaps he means this"The next thing I know is that Chris is in the middle of the bus fighting with them. On an impulse, I went over there only to find her face bleeding and three of them beating her up.
It's all speculations. But the facts are two women were beaten up by a group of men.
Whatever happened between Chris and the group, real men would not put two women in that situation nor would they beat them up. Maybe Chris was trying to exit the top of the bus but the group were blocking her.
If the coins were being thrown along with the abuse surely that would then offset any counter allegation if Chris did lash out at one of them.
But it's just a very sad situation which was created by that gang. Unfortunately a common one.
The only saving grace is that no knives were used in this attack.
Whatever happened between Chris and the group, real men would not put two women in that situation nor would they beat them up. Maybe Chris was trying to exit the top of the bus but the group were blocking her.
If the coins were being thrown along with the abuse surely that would then offset any counter allegation if Chris did lash out at one of them.
But it's just a very sad situation which was created by that gang. Unfortunately a common one.
The only saving grace is that no knives were used in this attack.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 7th June 14:43
Supercilious Sid said:
I wouldn’t speculate personally except to observe that the vagueness of the report raises flags that important facts are indeed missing.
The hysterical reaction to your posts from a few posters to be expected, seeing their posting history they have form for it. They fly off the handle at the slightest questioning of the report. In short, you don’t really need to justify yourself to them. They get off on being outraged- it's their shtick.
Have to say Sid your username and posting style are the gift that keeps on giving as regards top notch self awareness The hysterical reaction to your posts from a few posters to be expected, seeing their posting history they have form for it. They fly off the handle at the slightest questioning of the report. In short, you don’t really need to justify yourself to them. They get off on being outraged- it's their shtick.
Liokault said:
greygoose said:
don'tbesilly said:
RemyMartin81D said:
Arrests have been made.
What for?Apparently it never happened according to some posters, the woman were attacked elsewhere by AN Others, or assaulted each other, quite bizarre some of the posts being made.
WTF is wrong with people who genuinely believe that s
t ?In terms of the homophobia, we don't know what was going through the heads of the attackers in terms of motives surrounding this etc.
Heartworm said:
15 to 18 are the ages of the arrested, at what age does it not go to the children’s court?
18. jakesmith said:
When I read the story it did sound a little ambiguous about how the violence started from the account of one of the women:
"they started throwing coins. The next thing I know Chris is in the middle of the bus and they are punching her"
I hope the guys get caught & jailed, all I am saying is it read that way to me as though it wasn't clear that the blokes threw the 1st punch. I wouldn't in any way blame the girls and the blokes behavior was disgusting.
Memory is flawed, especially under stress. "they started throwing coins. The next thing I know Chris is in the middle of the bus and they are punching her"
I hope the guys get caught & jailed, all I am saying is it read that way to me as though it wasn't clear that the blokes threw the 1st punch. I wouldn't in any way blame the girls and the blokes behavior was disgusting.
Davos123 said:
La Liga said:
In terms of the homophobia, we don't know what was going through the heads of the attackers in terms of motives surrounding this etc.
They don’t need to be consciously aware of their prejudice for it to be a homophobic attack.It may be, but it may not be.
Davos123 said:
La Liga said:
t may have been, but in law (there is no homophobic crime in criminal law so we need to borrow from the racial / religious hate crimes), it needs to be motivated by or there needs to be a demonstration of hostility at the time.
It may be, but it may not be.
You can be demonstrably hostile to a protected class without having a conscious prejudice toward them.It may be, but it may not be.
People can draw inferences at lesser standards.
As I say, it may be, it may not be. I'd like to know all the information before drawing conclusions.
otolith said:
La Liga said:
Davos123 said:
La Liga said:
t may have been, but in law (there is no homophobic crime in criminal law so we need to borrow from the racial / religious hate crimes), it needs to be motivated by or there needs to be a demonstration of hostility at the time.
It may be, but it may not be.
You can be demonstrably hostile to a protected class without having a conscious prejudice toward them.It may be, but it may not be.
People can draw inferences at lesser standards.
As I say, it may be, it may not be. I'd like to know all the information before drawing conclusions.
272BHP said:
98elise said:
272BHP said:
It was kids.
Some teenage boys can be horrible, really horrible, especially in groups.
That is all I see in this story until more information comes to light.
How many kids beat up women and rob them? Their ages don't mitigate the crime.Some teenage boys can be horrible, really horrible, especially in groups.
That is all I see in this story until more information comes to light.
And who took the photo? and why was the photo taken? who allowed it to be taken and for what reason?
Sounds unlikely
Be honest, you aren’t wondering at all why this is any more newsworthy than many other late night rumpuses in a big city are you ?
272BHP said:
They made it newsworthy by taking pictures and contacting the media so yeah I get why it was jumped on with glee by the press.
Most other people just report the assault and robbery to the police and get on with their lives.
Go on, you can do it, what is it you really want to say about this case and your perspective on society ?Most other people just report the assault and robbery to the police and get on with their lives.
Have the courage of your convictions rather than following the classic PH drip drip route of less than subtle implication.
Regardless of the nature vs nurture balance, men are more violent than women. For example, 90% (IIRC) of murders are committed by men. Yes, men tend to do more damage than women when they're violent, but it doesn't explain that one example.
It's not 'aggravated GBH' it's GBH which may have aggravating factors. Pedantic, but you wouldn't label other crimes which have aggravating factors the same way.
No it's in no way clear that it was homophobic.
If a black person was attacked after they refused to hand over their wallet would that go from a mugging to a racially aggravated mugging? Or was the simple act of refusing to comply with his attackers the reason for the assault, as in this case.
I think that the Crown Prosecution Service may disagree with you.....
In England and Wales the monitored strands of hate crime are:
racially and religiously aggravated;
homophobic, biphobic and transphobic; and
disability hate crime.
These strands are covered by legislation (sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.The law is a little bit muddled and the way the authorities often write it is confusing.
We have hate incidents and hate crimes.
Hate incidents are where the someone perceives something is based upon hate. This could, in theory, be pretty much anything. I could be walking down the street and someone looks at 'in the wrong way' and I could perceive they did because I am disabled / gay / black whatever. If I report this to the police they must record it as a hate incident (not a crime).
Yes, it's stupid, but it's a protocol placed post-Stephen Lawrence and the theory is it's better not to filter in case of misjudging something.
Now a hate crime has more to it.
First there are four crimes and only two strands of hate that are actual crimes in law (28-32 CDA). Assault, damage, some public order and harassment. These can be racially or religiously aggravated.
In order to be so, it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt (not just someone's perception) that the crime was motivated by the offender's perception of the victim's membership or presumed membership of a racial / religious group. Or a demonstration of hostility at the time based on the victim's membership - the classic example being racially abusing someone when committing the crime.
S.146 of the CJA 2003 adds little confusion, as it isn't creating new crimes (i.e. what you're charged with), it is making the sentence more serious when it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was motivated by the sexual orientation, disability or victim being transgender (or perception of), or the offence being motivated by the victim being one of those things.
It's a bit of a mess. Practically the five strands of hate that are mentioned above are treated the same at the sentencing stage. It's just two have it built in from the ground-up and three have the aggravation bolted on at a later date.
The key part is the hate element in both cases needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Bit like a police promotion exam question.
It's not 'aggravated GBH' it's GBH which may have aggravating factors. Pedantic, but you wouldn't label other crimes which have aggravating factors the same way.
Rushjob said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Integroo said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Its despicable but I don't think its homophobic.
It's bloody clearly homophobic. If a black person was attacked after they refused to hand over their wallet would that go from a mugging to a racially aggravated mugging? Or was the simple act of refusing to comply with his attackers the reason for the assault, as in this case.
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Saturday 8th June 11:32
In England and Wales the monitored strands of hate crime are:
racially and religiously aggravated;
homophobic, biphobic and transphobic; and
disability hate crime.
These strands are covered by legislation (sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
We have hate incidents and hate crimes.
Hate incidents are where the someone perceives something is based upon hate. This could, in theory, be pretty much anything. I could be walking down the street and someone looks at 'in the wrong way' and I could perceive they did because I am disabled / gay / black whatever. If I report this to the police they must record it as a hate incident (not a crime).
Yes, it's stupid, but it's a protocol placed post-Stephen Lawrence and the theory is it's better not to filter in case of misjudging something.
Now a hate crime has more to it.
First there are four crimes and only two strands of hate that are actual crimes in law (28-32 CDA). Assault, damage, some public order and harassment. These can be racially or religiously aggravated.
In order to be so, it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt (not just someone's perception) that the crime was motivated by the offender's perception of the victim's membership or presumed membership of a racial / religious group. Or a demonstration of hostility at the time based on the victim's membership - the classic example being racially abusing someone when committing the crime.
S.146 of the CJA 2003 adds little confusion, as it isn't creating new crimes (i.e. what you're charged with), it is making the sentence more serious when it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was motivated by the sexual orientation, disability or victim being transgender (or perception of), or the offence being motivated by the victim being one of those things.
It's a bit of a mess. Practically the five strands of hate that are mentioned above are treated the same at the sentencing stage. It's just two have it built in from the ground-up and three have the aggravation bolted on at a later date.
The key part is the hate element in both cases needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Bit like a police promotion exam question.
Getragdogleg said:
Brooking10 said:
Getragdogleg said:
"throwing coins"
Police not told the public anything about those arrested.
All part and parcel of living in a big city.
It writes itself.
What should the Police be saying ?Police not told the public anything about those arrested.
All part and parcel of living in a big city.
It writes itself.
If we knew the nationality/origins country/religion of the youths we might be able to delve deeper into the whys and wherefores but I suspect the youths identities don't fit the narrative the couple/Grauniad et al are pushing so we will not find out.
If the names are ever released I suspect we are not going to be reading "john smith" or "Dave green".
The left say they love gays, and minorities and preach religious tolerance, they are however uncomfortable bedfellows sometimes.
Asking that question would have saved you a bit of time.
Getragdogleg said:
Roofless Toothless said:
Getragdogleg said:
For those of you that don't do reading comprehension well, my point was that there is more to this than meets the eye. its not a simple attack, the real events are not like its being spun now.
"There is more to this than meets the eye...""The real events are not like it's being spun..."
Those are very positive assertions. Do you have access to information that is not yet in the public domain on which to base these statements? Nothing I have seen in the media would suggest this.
I may well myself have doubts about what happened but I am content to wait until the truth comes out in court before I make my mind up. How do you know so much?
This will play out and the truth will be somewhere in the future where it will be missed by the majority but the story now will be the one that sticks. "lesbians beaten on night bus by right wing thugs" even if the actual events were not quite as sensational.
Beyond one verbatim comment from one of the alleged victims re “right wing populism” there does not seem to be any political slant being mentioned at all.
It seems to me that the political extrapolation is being done significantly more by people like yourself and the ever disingenuous Juan Carlos Fandango than it is anywhere in the media.
It’s most peculiar.
dandarez said:
Brooking10 said:
irocfan said:
Tbh I'm also curious as to how their assailants were known to be right wing...
Who has said they were ?This seems to be a building PH NPE trope.
I did note that the two beaten girls themselves have blamed the attack on the rise of 'rightwing populism'.
Mind you, I read that in the 'first para' of the report in the Grauniad, so who knows?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/07/tw...
Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
g4ry13 said:
"The two women involved do not wish to pursue any police action."
So they're happy to let the people get away with it and would rather just report it to the media instead
Free publicity for the play? So they're happy to let the people get away with it and would rather just report it to the media instead
People in question are abused/have items thrown at them en route to their performance
Said people make report to Police
Police take down details
Given timing of events and subsequent follow up play is cancelled for the evening
Theatre/production company puts out statement that that evening’s showing is cancelled
Media outlets follow up on said statement
Police ask those abused/assaulted for description of perpetrators, car make, model, reg etc.
Victims unable to provide such details
Police advise without said details any chance of meaningful further investigation is going to be extremely difficult
Victims accept position and agree to NFA
Police issue statement to said effect
It’s not difficult to piece together and not a Guardian led conspiracy in sight !
irocfan said:
valiant said:
Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
g4ry13 said:
"The two women involved do not wish to pursue any police action."
So they're happy to let the people get away with it and would rather just report it to the media instead
Free publicity for the play? So they're happy to let the people get away with it and would rather just report it to the media instead
Maybe they don’t want to go through the grief and hassle of reporting it and any ensuing court action as the perpetrators would only get a slap on the wrist whilst they have to live with the memories forever. They maybe see raising awareness of homophobia as a cathartic process to help them deal with the attack as well as doing some wider good?
Not everyone has ulterior motives...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff