Hate crime now top priority?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:06 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Google 'police hate crime priority' and you will find no news stories about the police making hate crime a priority.

Wendy Williams of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has just said of "hate crime" while criticising forces' responses; "This is a priority and should be treated as such."

Just in case you thought people were making it up. That's the independent body which oversees the Constabulary stating it's a priority.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:08 pm

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

Are you classing yourself as a victim now as you've lost your "right" to call whoever you like whatever you like?

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:17 pm

Well that made for a boring read, IT please step up your game, you're slacking lately.

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:18 pm

thatdberight wrote:Wendy Williams of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has just said of "hate crime" while criticising forces' responses; "This is a priority and should be treated as such."

Just in case you thought people were making it up. That's the independent body which oversees the Constabulary stating it's a priority.

Can you provide a direct quote please?

The only thing with those words I can see is this

"The National Police Chiefs' Council lead on hate crime, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton, said hate crime had been a priority for the police for many years and their response was "amongst the best in the world".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44873179" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if your quote is correct, are you not sure that it means... Improving the current poor performance is a priority. Not making the crime itself a priority?

A quote from the report itself doesn't mention making it a "priority" unless I missed it

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk ... ate-crime/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

starting_11 · Post by **starting_11** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:20 pm

I hate everyone equally.

Does that make me the worlds biggest bigot or the least?

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:24 pm

starting_11 wrote:I hate everyone equally.

Does that make me the worlds biggest bigot or the least?

Not quite the same question but you might get some guidance to your ethical quandry here

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-st ... ne-equally" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:29 pm

This thread reminds me of those social media pictures that go something like: "Our brave vets who have fought for this country have to eat their own shoe leather to survive, while migrants are given everything for nothing - share if you think this is wrong"

We only have a limited supply of justice in this country, so do we want to use it on people who rob and steal, or do we waste it on someone's grandmother who accidentally used the N word on F@cebook?

In neither case is the option of investing enough money to do both.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:31 pm

AndrewJB wrote:This thread reminds me of those social media pictures that go something like: "Our brave vets who have fought for this country have to eat their own shoe leather to survive, while migrants are given everything for nothing - share if you think this is wrong"

We only have a limited supply of justice in this country, so do we want to use it on people who rob and steal, or do we waste it on someone's grandmother who accidentally used the N word on F@cebook?

In neither case is the option of investing enough money to do both.

To be fair though, we should never have had to ask vets to go to war.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:38 pm

SonofPog wrote:Can you provide a direct quote please?

The only thing with those words I can see is this

"The National Police Chiefs' Council lead on hate crime, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton, said hate crime had been a priority for the police for many years and their response was "amongst the best in the world".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44873179" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if your quote is correct, are you not sure that it means... Improving the current poor performance is a priority. Not making the crime itself a priority?

A quote from the report itself doesn't mention making it a "priority" unless I missed it

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk ... ate-crime/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I already provided you with a quotation and the name of the person who said it. The lady's intent was clear but, to be honest, you're just going to find some other reason to disbelieve it so forget it. Among theories you might like to pursue are;
Am I sure it was Wendy Williams?
If so, was it that Wendy Williams?
Was it an interview about something else cut to make it look like she said that?
Was I on hallucinogenic drugs when I saw it?

You'll have your own as well.

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:47 pm

Wow... Defensive much?

All I wanted was a link to where you got that information from. Sorry but I don't just take peoples words of the internet as proof.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:49 pm

SonofPog wrote:Wow... Defensive much?

All I wanted was a link to where you got that information from. Sorry but I don't just take peoples words of the internet as proof.

Not defensive. I just know a closed mind when I see one.

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:56 pm

Okay, thanks anyway.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:00 pm

thatdberight wrote:I already provided you with a quotation and the name of the person who said it. The lady's intent was clear but, to be honest, you're just going to find some other reason to disbelieve it so forget it. Among theories you might like to pursue are;
Am I sure it was Wendy Williams?
If so, was it that Wendy Williams?
Was it an interview about something else cut to make it look like she said that?
Was I on hallucinogenic drugs when I saw it?

You'll have your own as well.

The use of the word 'priority' has clearly been used clumsily in the quote. I read that to say that hate crime will be treated seriously. You may think that I'm reading between the lines but do you genuinely believe that the police treat hate crime as a priority over murder or rape, for example?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:08 pm

burnleymik wrote:So there is only a crime if there is a victim?

Yes. Because the crime isn't the speaking of racist language. I feel like you're getting really close to understanding what a hate crime actually is. The words aren't the crime.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:18 pm

Rileybobs wrote:The use of the word 'priority' has clearly been used clumsily in the quote. I read that to say that hate crime will be treated seriously. You may think that I'm reading between the lines but do you genuinely believe that the police treat hate crime as a priority over murder or rape, for example?

I'm not in the business of prioritising the police's workload. I simply responded to a poster who didn't / doesn't / is determined not to acknowledge that this has been made "a" priority. How one balances conflicting priorities is another matter altogether.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:24 pm

burnleymik wrote:So there is only a crime if there is a victim?

To be fair, the police say there can be a hate crime even if there's not a crime so insisting on there being a victim is asking a bit much...

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:41 pm

MRG wrote:EASY Crime now top priority

Like these crimes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113 something isn't working if only 1 in 10 crimes result in charges,

MRG · Post by **MRG** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:45 pm

tiger76 wrote:Like these crimes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113 something isn't working if only 1 in 10 crimes result in charges,

With them figures do we even need a police force. Let’s get rid of the bobbies and spend the money on speed cameras and ‘anti hate’ campaigns

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 pm

thatdberight wrote:Wendy Williams of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has just said of "hate crime" while criticising forces' responses; "This is a priority and should be treated as such."

Just in case you thought people were making it up. That's the independent body which oversees the Constabulary stating it's a priority.

I read that, still correct in saying Its not the police, it's a watchdog who advise the police.

Headlines like the BBC "Police must tackle hate crime problems, says watchdog" is not the same as "Police make hate crime a priority" which is the OP's made up one.
A suggestion by a third party is not the same as a statement by a first party.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:05 pm

Violent crime is on the rise
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -and-wales" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:21 pm

The party of law and order, eh ?

Wilsdenclaret · Post by **Wilsdenclaret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:40 pm

My Danish other half, UK resident for 27 years has just been racially abused by an Amazon delivery driver bless her cotton socks, should add to the numbers

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:51 pm

All crimes are bad, some worse than others, but whats the point of the Police arresting them, only for the courts to give them a slap on the wrist.
I don't agree with it, but I can understand why the Police are thoroughly ****** off.
Until persistent, repeat offenders are jailed, for any crime, nothing is going to deter criminals/ perverts/ thugs/ druggies or racists.

If it takes more prisons and more money then we should all be willing to pay pay for it. if you're not, then you can't be bothered that much about crime and can have no complaints.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:58 pm

I was racially abused by a couple of black guys on my way to the Black and White minstrels appreciation society annual dinner.
What I want to know is how could they tell I was a white guy ? Its not as if i had my banjo out if you pardon the expression.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes. Because the crime isn't the speaking of racist language. I feel like you're getting really close to understanding what a hate crime actually is. The words aren't the crime.

You have actually done quite well at twisting this away from your original position, that wolf whistling was not yet a crime because there was an MP calling for it to be a crime.

IMO if you can be charged with a hate crime for a wolf whistle, regardless of the scenario, then it's being policed. It basically means you cannot wolf whistle in a public place because someone could take offense and thus you could be charged.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:15 pm

thatdberight wrote:To be fair, the police say there can be a hate crime even if there's not a crime so insisting on there being a victim is asking a bit much...

Any chance you could give that some context or a link to where they said it please? Seems rather a strange position to take.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:15 pm

Why would anyone want to make themselves look like an ignorant yob by wolf whistling someone, a lass one assumes, for Christ's sake ?

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:18 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:Go on then, I'm going to risk having my collar felt: you're a ****. And your English is appalling.

Nearly 11 hours since I called you a **** and the police still haven't called round.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:26 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:Why would anyone want to make themselves look like an ignorant yob by wolf whistling someone, a lass one assumes, for Christ's sake ?

It shouldn't matter. If someone wolf whistles then yes someome might take offense, but that's as far as it goes. No one gets hurt. It should not be a hate crime.

Have we gotten to a place where we have to always tread on eggshells incase we offend someone or someone gets offended or someone else's behalf?

Should that be a police matter?

If they are inciting violence then I absolutely agree, but using the police to tackle an idiot who wolf whistles is beyond ridiculous.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:27 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:Why would anyone want to make themselves look like an ignorant yob by wolf whistling someone, a lass one assumes, for Christ's sake ?

And you said it yourself... They would be an ignorant yob, but that is a s far as it should go. We know they are acting like a moron, but it shouldn't take the police to step in. That is going too far.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:30 pm

I haven't read all the posts on here, but what crime is not hateful? Perhaps the police should make (all) crime prevention a priority.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:36 pm

burnleymik wrote:You have actually done quite well at twisting this away from your original position, that wolf whistling was not yet a crime because there was an MP calling for it to be a crime.

IMO if you can be charged with a hate crime for a wolf whistle, regardless of the scenario, then it's being policed. It basically means you cannot wolf whistle in a public place because someone could take offense and thus you could be charged.

It's not a crime. There no twisting involved. Now you can apologise for making **** up about me "twisting" or something, as if I've had to. Harassing women (anyone really) is a crime. if you don't want to be prosecuted for harassing women then don't do it.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:45 pm

burnleymik wrote:Sky News are covering it:

https://news.sky.com/story/police-force ... s-11441276" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you consider a wolf whistle can now be reported as a hate crime, it shows how subjective it really is.

I am not sure we should be wasting precious police resources on chasing down trolls and appeasing some of the professionally offended.

This was my original post. You claimed I was making sh#t up. You were completely wrong... Again.

Wolf whistling can be reported as a hate crime.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:53 pm

burnleymik wrote:This was my original post. You claimed I was making sh#t up. You were completely wrong... Again.

Wolf whistling can be reported as a hate crime.

What about saying something like "you don't sweat much for a fat lass"? No good any more?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:51 pm

burnleymik wrote:Any chance you could give that some context or a link to where they said it please? Seems rather a strange position to take.

My first post on this topic. Verbatim and direct from the Nottinghamshire force.

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 48#p767248" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Source - sorry. Didn't keep the URL. It was cut&paste from a FoI response from the force I found this morning.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:55 pm

CombatClaret wrote:I read that, still correct in saying Its not the police, it's a watchdog who advise the police.

Headlines like the BBC "Police must tackle hate crime problems, says watchdog" is not the same as "Police make hate crime a priority" which is the OP's made up one.
A suggestion by a third party is not the same as a statement by a first party.

Their mandate is to "independently assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of police forces" and they are accountable to Parliament for discharging this. If they say this is a priority, that's because it is. They're not a lobby group or making up their own mandate on a whim.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:24 pm

boatshed bill wrote:What about saying something like "you don't sweat much for a fat lass"? No good any more?

Plod be knocking your door down any second....

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:31 pm

thatdberight wrote:My first post on this topic. Verbatim and direct from the Nottinghamshire force.

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 48#p767248" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ahh yes, now I see, absolutely bonkers

So, I imagine, in that context, every single person holding one of those Trump hate banners in the London protest, should technically be dealing with the police. They, by the Nottingham force's very definition, were perpetrating hate towards an individual.

The strange thing though, is that somehow that is classed as freedom of expression and this was exactly my point right at the start.... It's far too subjective to be policed, what offends some people will not offend others.

Morrisminor · Post by **Morrisminor** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:54 pm

Looks like it is a priority

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-43436900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:05 pm

Morrisminor wrote:Looks like it is a priority

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-43436900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems like that is the case in Scotland.

Yes funding has been cut and is tight, so is it really worth chasing people who are using words we don't like (as long as they are not trying to create violence)?. The very worst that can happen is hurt feelings and offense. At a time when the police are making very loud noises about their funding, articles like this don't help their case.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:36 pm

burnleymik wrote:It seems like that is the case in Scotland.

Yes funding has been cut and is tight, so is it really worth chasing people who are using words we don't like (as long as they are not trying to create violence)?. The very worst that can happen is hurt feelings and offense. At a time when the police are making very loud noises about their funding, articles like this don't help their case.

You do understand that the term ‘hate crime’ applies to a lot more than verbal abuse don’t you?

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:39 pm

Rileybobs wrote:You do understand that the term ‘hate crime’ applies to a lot more than verbal abuse don’t you?

Of course, but the problem is insults are now encompassed in "hate crime" and is treated the same way as things which genuinely incite hatred.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:41 pm

Rileybobs wrote:You do understand that the term ‘hate crime’ applies to a lot more than verbal abuse don’t you?

Wait. What? how can you hate crime someone non-verbally? Are ESP crimes now hate crimes? lol. Or telekinetic crimes? Or just normal hate-driven violence... oh.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:42 pm

burnleymik wrote:Of course, but the problem is insults are now encompassed in "hate crime" and is treated the same way as things which genuinely incite hatred.

So words can’t genuinely incite hatred? I’m confused.

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:44 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems ok according to the link

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:33 am

Rileybobs wrote:So words can’t genuinely incite hatred? I’m confused.

Okay, let's try it another way. Do you want to police to be involved in dealing with defining hate speech?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:05 am

burnleymik wrote:Okay, let's try it another way. Do you want to police to be involved in dealing with defining hate speech?

The police wouldn’t be defining hate speech, it would be the courts.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:58 am

Rileybobs wrote:The police wouldn’t be defining hate speech, it would be the courts.

To repeat, the police certainly say they define "hate crime";
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 48#p767248" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:13 am

thatdberight wrote:To repeat, the police certainly say they define "hate crime";
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... 48#p767248" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the police’s definition of hate crime will not dictate whether someone is prosecuted for said crime.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:39 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:So the police will be there in a shot if your called a nasty name but tell you sorry we haven’t time if your car is trashed or house robbed I hope the PC promoting left feel very proud...

It's not just the left mate, I'm a 'lefty' and I hate PC with a passion. I have a mate who is a dyed in the wool Tory and he is as PC as you can get. Personally I think it's more of an age thing than a political one.

Either way you are right in your original premise. The wrong type of 'crime' is being prioritised.