Hate crime now top priority?

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:04 am

MRG wrote:The point is, did it actually happen?

I'd guess that yes it did happen, and the driver or a passenger reported it, and there'll be CCTV supporting it

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:05 am

MRG wrote:The only parallel I’m drawing is that 1 crime definitely happened and had a victim and 1 crime may of happened but at the stage of going to fb there was no agreived party.

The crime that had resources thrown at it wasn’t the crime that definitely happened and had a victim.

How do you know the van break in happened?

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:07 am

Walton wrote:How do you know the van break in happened?

Because the victim reported it to the police

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:07 am

And the moral of that story is “as long as it’s not my van”

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:07 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. Who's running away from anything? Intimidation is a crime. If you go about deliberately targeting women for intimidation then you deserve to be charged with a crime. But wolf-whistling specifically isn't a crime. It's perfectly possible to wolf-whistle legally. I've literally just done it. Do you want to report me to the police and see what they say? I have after all confessed.

You normally come across as quite intelligent, but you let yourself down here. If you just wolf whistled and a nearby female decided you aimed that at her and reported you to the police , then you could be charged with a hate crime. That is the point and you know it, but are trying to validate your previously incorrect comments.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:12 am

MRG wrote:Because the victim reported it to the police

How do you know he didn't do it himself, an insurance scam? There are no witnesses.

There are witnesses to this assault, so it's strange that this is the one you have doubts over.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:16 am

burnleymik wrote:You normally come across as quite intelligent, but you let yourself down here. If you just wolf whistled and a nearby female decided you aimed that at her and reported you to the police , then you could be charged with a hate crime. That is the point and you know it, but are trying to validate your previously incorrect comments.

Then don't wolf whistle in public at people you don't know. Lol. Your argument that it's a crime to wolf whistle because you can't wolf whistle at people you don't know without risking it being reported is like saying masturbating is a crime because you can't have a **** on a bus. And if you think that sounds ridiculous it's only because your argument is ridiculous.

Stop being a **** to women.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:20 am

Walton wrote:How do you know he didn't do it himself, an insurance scam? There are no witnesses.

There are witnesses to this assault, so it's strange that this is the one you have doubts over.

That’s exactly why they must investigate, if this is an insurance scam let’s get him prosecuted as it is our premiums that will be hammered long term!

I’m glad that we have finally found some common ground on this!

You seem to know a lot about this alleged incident on the bus... I hope that you have informed the police that there was witnesses because they hadn’t come forward at the time of the appeal. Also, who determined that it was urine that was thrown?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:26 am

MRG wrote:That’s exactly why they must investigate, if this is an insurance scam let’s get him prosecuted as it is our premiums that will be hammered long term!

I’m glad that we have finally found some common ground on this!

You seem to know a lot about this alleged incident on the bus... I hope that you have informed the police that there was witnesses because they hadn’t come forward at the time of the appeal. Also, who determined that it was urine that was thrown?

How would you suggest the police throw resources at the van break in? Should they get the forensic team in? Maybe the assailant left a cigarette butt at the scene with a lipstick stain, the brand of which can be traced back to only 2 retailers in the Burnley area.

Or maybe they should just accept that no one saw the incident and give the victim a crime number so that he can claim for damage or loss of property through his insurance policy.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:26 am

The point is, did it actually happen?

Because the victim reported it to the police

You do have to wonder about this board sometimes

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:27 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You do have to wonder about this board sometimes

It really makes you see people’s true colours.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:28 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You do have to wonder about this board sometimes

Probably best that you have a read back through the posts then delete this as you’ve made a bit of a prat of yourself lol

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:30 am

MRG wrote:The crime that had resources thrown at it wasn’t the crime that definitely happened and had a victim.

Would it surprise you to learn robbery/burglary is the hardest crime to solve?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:31 am

I've made myself a pratt?

Jesus H Christ mate, look at your posts!

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:32 am

CombatClaret wrote:Would it surprise you to learn robbery/burglary is the hardest crime to solve?

Have we finally got to the point in time where we simply ignore crime that is ‘the hardest to solve’?

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:32 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Then don't wolf whistle in public at people you don't know. Lol. Your argument that it's a crime to wolf whistle because you can't wolf whistle at people you don't know without risking it being reported is like saying masturbating is a crime because you can't have a **** on a bus. And if you think that sounds ridiculous it's only because your argument is ridiculous.

Stop being a **** to women.

No, your argument is null. You could walk outside and shout a racial slur, as long as there is nobody around to take offense are you saying that it is legal to do so?

Also your last comment just a cheap shot and detracts from your other arguments, but something I notice you do a lot. You take personal shots and slants against the person you disagree with. Can you not hold a civil conversation?

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:33 am

Rileybobs wrote:How would you suggest the police throw resources at the van break in? Should they get the forensic team in? Maybe the assailant left a cigarette butt at the scene with a lipstick stain, the brand of which can be traced back to only 2 retailers in the Burnley area.

Or maybe they should just accept that no one saw the incident and give the victim a crime number so that he can claim for damage or loss of property through his insurance policy.

This, it's the hardest crime to solve.

Very often no evidence left at scene, victim is random with no links to perp, no witnesses. Without witnesses, it is difficult to determine when a robbery has taken place and it is easier to have a viable alibi.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:35 am

burnleymik wrote:No, your argument is null. You could walk outside and shout a racial slur, as long as there is nobody around to take offense are you saying that it is legal to do so?

Also your last comment just a cheap shot and detracts from your other arguments, but something I notice you do a lot. You take personal shots and slants against the person you disagree with. Can you not hold a civil conversation?

Lol. Yes. It's perfectly legal to shout a racial slur if there's no one to hear it.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:37 am

CombatClaret wrote:This, it's the hardest crime to solve.

Very often no evidence left at scene, victim is random with no links to perp, no witnesses. Without witnesses, it is difficult to determine when a robbery has taken place and it is easier to have a viable alibi.

Where do we draw the line? Do we investigate a bank robbery for example or the mugging of an old lady? I literally can’t believe what I’m reading here.

Am I correct in understanding that people (more than one poster on here) believes that if a crime could be difficult to solve the police should not investigate it and instead focus on the report of a drunk reveller returning on the last bus back from a night out that somebody said some homophobic things to somebody who wasn’t even offended enough to report it themselves??

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:39 am

EASY Crime now top priority

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:40 am

Policies like these doesn’t protect victims it creates them..

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:42 am

MRG wrote:Have we finally got to the point in time where we simply ignore crime that is ‘the hardest to solve’?

In a world of limited resources yes, you have to prioritise. That's how you run a country.
Also it wasn't ignored, it was recorded.

In reality, unlike a murder (which is easier to solve) a robbery from a van is a low impact crime.
So where the crime is very hard to solve but the overall impact is low it's not in the interest of the tax payer to throw money at it.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:44 am

MRG wrote:Where do we draw the line? Do we investigate a bank robbery for example or the mugging of an old lady? I literally can’t believe what I’m reading here.

Am I correct in understanding that people (more than one poster on here) believes that if a crime could be difficult to solve the police should not investigate it and instead focus on the report of a drunk reveller returning on the last bus back from a night out that somebody said some homophobic things to somebody who wasn’t even offended enough to report it themselves??

So basically you want a police force that's starved of resources and cash to throw a lot of money at trying to ascertain who broke into a car, when they are trying to prevent terrorist atrocities, protect the vulnerable and keep us all safe?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:44 am

MRG wrote:Where do we draw the line? Do we investigate a bank robbery for example or the mugging of an old lady? I literally can’t believe what I’m reading here.

Am I correct in understanding that people (more than one poster on here) believes that if a crime could be difficult to solve the police should not investigate it and instead focus on the report of a drunk reveller returning on the last bus back from a night out that somebody said some homophobic things to somebody who wasn’t even offended enough to report it themselves??

Not at all. All crime should be investigated. However I presume that the police attended the scene of the van break in and ascertained that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed any further with the investigation. If there are no witnesses or evidence then how would you suggest the police follow up on this? Unless you want all incidents of this nature to be given the full CSI treatment?

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:45 am

CombatClaret wrote:In a world of limited resources yes, you have to prioritise. That's how you run a country.
Also it wasn't ignored, it was recorded.

In reality, unlike a murder (which is easier to solve) a robbery from a van is a low impact crime.
So where the crime is very hard to solve but the overall impact is low it's not in the interest of the tax payer to throw money at it.

This genuinely interests me and I’m not purposely being argumentative. I’m intrigued where you see crimes in the order of resource allocation. If my mates house had been broken into would you still class the victimless crime on the bus above it?

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:47 am

nil_desperandum wrote:So let's get this right, based on your title thread - Hate crime now top priority?:
You think that burglary (awful though it is) and damage to your car, is more serious than the horrific murder of Sophie Lancaster, (whose very courageous mother has been interviewed about it this morning)?

The ultimate impact of hate crime is incidents like this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... e-44885166
That is why it is taken seriously.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:47 am

nil_desperandum wrote:So basically you want a police force that's starved of resources and cash to throw a lot of money at trying to ascertain who broke into a car, when they are trying to prevent terrorist atrocities, protect the vulnerable and keep us all safe?

Absolutely not, I’m suggesting they start with the crimes that have a victim and not spending time searching for the victim before they even start looking for the offender.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:48 am

Rileybobs wrote:Not at all. All crime should be investigated. However I presume that the police attended the scene of the van break in and ascertained that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed any further with the investigation. If there are no witnesses or evidence then how would you suggest the police follow up on this? Unless you want all incidents of this nature to be given the full CSI treatment?

No they didn’t even attend. The bus incident was rang in by another passenger, no victim report.

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:49 am

MRG wrote:This genuinely interests me and I’m not purposely being argumentative. I’m intrigued where you see crimes in the order of resource allocation. If my mates house had been broken into would you still class the victimless crime on the bus above it?

You really think that someone being verbally abused, intimidated, and then having had p1ss poured on them isn’t a victim of crime?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:49 am

MRG wrote:This genuinely interests me and I’m not purposely being argumentative. I’m intrigued where you see crimes in the order of resource allocation. If my mates house had been broken into would you still class the victimless crime on the bus above it?

Sorry to butt in, but who is classing the alleged homophobic abuse above the van burglary?

One incident has witnesses and clearly has an opportunity for further investigation, the other doesn’t.

HiroshimaClaret · Post by **HiroshimaClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:49 am

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:I love these intelligent debates started by someone who can't use "you're" properly.
Always makes me think, "Hey I really should take this person's pompous reactionary crap seriously".

It should actually be ` ` , not " ", as we are technically typing not speaking.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:51 am

Lord Beamish wrote:You really think that someone being verbally abused, intimidated, and then having had p1ss poured in then isn’t a victim of crime?

If it happened this should have all resources thrown at it but at the time of the fb post there was no report from a victim simply another night time reveller giving their opinion.

Similarly if said person got off the bus, walked past my mates house and rang in saying he thinks a van was broken into I wouldn’t expect an investigation until my mate had rang it in then they knew it had actually happened

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:52 am

MRG wrote:No they didn’t even attend. The bus incident was rang in by another passenger, no victim report.

I’m not sure of police policy for something like this but I would expect them to attend the scene and take a statement. If they didn’t then that’s clearly poor. Your second sentence is ridiculous though, are you suggesting that because a crime isnt reported by the victim, but by someone else, it shouldn’t be investigated?

If I’m being honest it appears that your prejudices are showing through on this thread

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:53 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:..you can't have a **** on a bus.

He gets a few things wrong, but I can confirm that this bit is true. Lesson learned.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:54 am

Rileybobs wrote:I’m not sure of police policy for something like this but I would expect them to attend the scene and take a statement. If they didn’t then that’s clearly poor. Your second sentence is ridiculous though, are you suggesting that because a crime isnt reported by the victim, but by someone else, it shouldn’t be investigated?

If I’m being honest it appears that your prejudices are showing through on this thread

What prejudices are they?

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:55 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. Yes. It's perfectly legal to shout a racial slur if there's no one to hear it.

So there is only a crime if there is a victim?

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:55 am

MRG wrote:What prejudices are they?

Rational thought, I suppose.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:56 am

MRG wrote:If it happened this should have all resources thrown at it but at the time of the fb post there was no report from a victim simply another night time reveller giving their opinion.

Similarly if said person got off the bus, walked past my mates house and rang in saying he thinks a van was broken into I wouldn’t expect an investigation until my mate had rang it in then they knew it had actually happened

Really? You’re talking garbage. If you were on holiday and your house was on fire would you be happy to get home to a burned down house to find that the police were waiting for you to report the incident?

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:56 am

Lord Beamish wrote:You really think that someone being verbally abused, intimidated, and then having had p1ss poured on them isn’t a victim of crime?

Sounds like a standard hour in the Big Window

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:57 am

Lord Beamish wrote:Rational thought, I suppose.

Haha I can accept that. I was worried he was suggesting that I may find urine throwing an appropriate behaviour (outside of the bedroom)

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:59 am

Rileybobs wrote:Really? You’re talking garbage. If you were on holiday and your house was on fire would you be happy to get home to a burned down house to find that the police were waiting for you to report the incident?

I’d expect the fire brigade to come to the actually fire rather than driving around a different area because a drunk had told them they had seen smoke

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:00 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Unless you want all incidents of this nature to be given the full CSI treatment?

They'd have no problem with this on NCIS!

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:02 pm

MRG wrote:I’d expect the fire brigade to come to the actually fire rather than driving around a different area because a drunk had told them they had seen smoke

How would the fire brigade know where their fire is? After all, you’re on a beach in Barbados so don’t know that your house is engulfed in flames hence unable to report the incident.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:04 pm

They should be able to see the flames. If not they could put a post on fb saying we heard there was a fire. Anybody’s house burning?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:09 pm

MRG wrote:They should be able to see the flames. If not they could put a post on fb saying we heard there was a fire. Anybody’s house burning?

Do you live next to a fire station? I expect most fires a reported by someone rather than being spotted by a fireman.

Anyway, the house fire analogy wasn’t the best. How about if your living room window was smashed in and you got back from holiday to find that your house had been cleared. You contact the police who are aware of the ‘alleged’ incident but decided not to look into it as the break in was reported by your next door neighbour rather than yourself. Would you be happy with that?

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:12 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Do you live next to a fire station? I expect most fires a reported by someone rather than being spotted by a fireman.

Anyway, the house fire analogy wasn’t the best. How about if your living room window was smashed in and you got back from holiday to find that your house had been cleared. You contact the police who are aware of the ‘alleged’ incident but decided not to look into it as the break in was reported by your next door neighbour rather than yourself. Would you be happy with that?

Let make it even more basic. If your house is broken into tonight and they walk into your kids bedroom whilst they are asleep to steal their money box but the police can’t come because they are dealing with some potential name calling on a bus full of drunks in which a victim hasn’t deemed it serious enough to report, would you feel that you have been dealt with fairly?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:18 pm

MRG wrote:Let make it even more basic. If your house is broken into tonight and they walk into your kids bedroom whilst they are asleep to steal their money box but the police can’t come because they are dealing with some potential name calling on a bus full of drunks in which a victim hasn’t deemed it serious enough to report, would you feel that you have been dealt with fairly?

I would expect them to come to my house, inspect the scene and take a statement from me, which is the same that I would expect for the bloke who’s van was broken into. I would also expect that the police would find the time to follow up on what sounds like an appalling incident on a bus. I would definitely find it bizarre if the police had to decide which of the two incidents they should investigate.

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:20 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Would it surprise you to learn robbery/burglary is the hardest crime to solve?

Cheers for that. Work's a bit slow at the moment so I might get myself an evening job.

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:22 pm

Rileybobs wrote: I would definitely find it bizarre if the police had to decide which of the two incidents they should investigate.

Sadly a sign of the times! This is probably where the problem is. Resources are stretched. I was talking to a copper recently, he said to cover Burnley and Rossendale on a Saturday night there is usually just 5 officers. On top of that they have traffic, dog etc... I expected loads more

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:30 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Policies like these doesn’t protect victims it creates them..

Awful, your English is a hate crime.