No doubt hate crime on the rise.

[JohnD]

What Filly said elsewhere is irrelevant

What filly said on this thread is what I responded to, and it is highly relevant.

It was, and is, nor true, and you are dishonest in pretending I said something else.

You are also dishonest in bluffing and diverting in a perverted attempt to pretend that what he said was true.

It was not, and is not.

Comparing Jews with Nazis is listed as a hate crime, it is very much against the law

Not in a UK law.

And you know it.

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

You are free to Google whether English is an ethnic group. That's all I did. I don't think there is any special definition in relation to hate crime.

I have no idea! But that's not the point being discussed by MBK. He is saying that everyone fits into one of the groups in the definition.

Jonathon, I'd like to revisit the matter you raised if I may.

It's true that everyone has at least one protected characteristic. So everyone is protected.
That's very different from saying that all crimes are potentially hate-crimes.
Some crimes are committed for robbery, some for vengeance, some even for love, some just for personal gain, etc.
It's the motivation for the crime that classifies it as a hate-crime. And obviously not all crimes are committed out of hate.
Indeed some crimes are described as crimes of passion (although not in UK). Some are described as honour killings, etc.

Perhaps we should amend the title of hate-crimes (as in better titles) as 'crimes of prejudice'.

 

[noseall]

And you know it.

I doubt it.

 

[JonathanM]

It's true that everyone has at least one protected characteristic. So everyone is protected.
That's very different from saying that all crimes are potentially hate-crimes.
Some crimes are committed for robbery, some for vengeance, some even for love, some just for personal gain, etc.
It's the motivation for the crime that classifies it as a hate-crime. And obviously not all crimes are committed out of hate.
Indeed some crimes are described as crimes of passion (although not in UK). Some are described as honour killings, etc.

I knew nothing really about hate crimes, so I've actually found this thread really interesting. As you say, it seems to be about the motivation. My first thought, when I heard that these two men had been murdered, was that it was actually about somebody befriending them and stealing all their money, then bumping them off. I didn't think about hate crime until I read the press release.

 

[motorbiking]

This one is not from the Act:

It's from a submission to the House of Lords from the Commission for Racial Equality.

click the link to the public order act, click latest revised, click sec 17 or 29, read.

What filly said on this thread is what I responded to, and it is highly relevant.

It was, and is, nor true, and you are dishonest in pretending I said something else.

You are also dishonest in bluffing and diverting in a perverted attempt to pretend that what he said was true.

It was not, and is not.



Not in a UK law.

And you know it.

The only person being dishonest is you. You have quoted some text and stated its is not in UK Law, I have shown you the relevant law, I have explained the text and yet you persist to argue that comparing jews, to nazis on a public forum, is not illegal in UK Law.

Other than post the law, explain the law and tell you, you are wrong that is as much as anyone can do. If your argument is that you have not compared jews to nazis then make that claim, instead of wrongfully saying to do so, is not illegal in UK law.

 

[motorbiking]

I knew nothing really about hate crimes, so I've actually found this thread really interesting. As you say, it seems to be about the motivation. My first thought, when I heard that these two men had been murdered, was that it was actually about somebody befriending them and stealing all their money, then bumping them off. I didn't think about hate crime until I read the press release.

and as a reminder, the police have said there is no evidence of a homophobic motive. I'm sure the motive will come out at some point over the next 9 months. By all accounts the alleged killer was not very smart, as the suitcase used had some sort of travel tag with the victims address on it. The police didn't have to work very hard to link the remains to the address.

The real issue here (apart from the murder) is the potential automatic tagging of the crime as hate crime, because the victims were gay. That is a worrying precedent. Had it been a simple assault, Police would go looking for hate as a motive, engage external stakeholders from the LGBTQ+ community (who now provide oversight) and look for a way to pin on the aggravating sentence rather than explore the evidence impartially. Similar behaviour might occur with a white person assaulting a black person etc. etc. is it likely that a gay person attacking a heterosexual person would be tagged this way? I think not.

My concern is, that while the Police are right to tackle their institutional prejudice, this should not result in over reporting of hate crime or trying to stick on a hate motive to achieve enhanced sentencing or achieve a KPI.

 

[Odds]

click the link to the public order act, click latest revised, click sec 17 or 29, read.
The only person being dishonest is you. You have quoted some text and stated its is not in UK Law, I have shown you the relevant law, I have explained the text and yet you persist to argue that comparing jews, to nazis on a public forum, is not illegal in UK Law.

Other than post the law, explain the law and tell you, you are wrong that is as much as anyone can do. If your argument is that you have not compared jews to nazis then make that claim, instead of wrongfully saying to do so, is not illegal in UK law.

still squealing like a stuck pig about this?
I'd think your time better served finding the 'quote' you find soooo offensive...

 

[motorbiking]

Your outrage suggests you take offence at being asked to reflect on your own posts. You do understand that reposting antisemitic material and playing innocent "I was just reposting it" doesn't give you any protection?

 

[Odds]

Your outrage suggests you take offence at being asked to reflect on your own posts. You do understand that reposting antisemitic material and playing innocent "I was just reposting it" doesn't give you any protection?

your perception is awry.
No wonder you can't find this alleged quote you're so piggy about.

 

[motorbiking]

Why would I be looking for a quote to support a claim I haven't made?

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

Why would I be looking for a quote to support a claim I haven't made?

You have claimed that a comment made by another is illegal.
You have been asked to provide that quote which you claim is illegal.
You must know of the comment which you claim is illegal.

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

click the link to the public order act, click latest revised, click sec 17 or 29, read.

OK, the phrases from the Submission, about who can be a victim of offense, has been adopted in the Act in sec 17.

What does sec 29 have to do with it?

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

The real issue here (apart from the murder) is the potential automatic tagging of the crime as hate crime, because the victims were gay.

The real issue is that some crimes are tagged as potentially 'hate-crimes' so that the correct investigation avenues are explored.
If the evidence is not looked for, it will not found.

My concern is, that while the Police are right to tackle their institutional prejudice, this should not result in over reporting of hate crime or trying to stick on a hate motive to achieve enhanced sentencing or achieve a KPI.

Your concern appears to be to reduce any recognition of hate-crimes, and to reduce any investigation of hate-crimes.
And in that concern you're making silly arguments about "all crimes being flagged as hate-crimes."
It's often abundantly clear that the motivation is anything but prejudice and bigotry.

 

[Odds]

You have claimed that a comment made by another is illegal.
You have been asked to provide that quote which you claim is illegal.
You must know of the comment which you claim is illegal.

Oh dear, MBKs memory is on the blink again.
He must've gone from sniffing yacht varnish to drinking it.

 

[denso13]

For those who are unfamiliar with the Public Order Act and the specific sections I quoted above, which are directly from the Act.

It doesn't contain the words Jew or Nazi.