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...

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

Lefty

I wish they’d make the cocaine epidemic a top priority. It’s rife but sod all seems to be being done about it.

Unfortunately this is the type of society we now live in. Hurt feelings are clearly more important than actual crime. It probably also means more forms can be ticked.

They're not here yet.

I suspect I will get some very defensive replies by the guilty..

SmudgetheClaret wrote:I suspect I will get some very defensive replies by the guilty..

Guilty of what? Hate crime, trashing cars, burgling houses, being illiterate?

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".

Popcorn gif

Have you a link to the incident/story you're referring to, Smudge or is this a general observation of the way things are going ?

It's just too subjective in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, as long as you are not making calls to incite violence, then speech should not be policed.

I have to ask, is Smudge sane?

He appears to be off his rocker if we are being perfectly honest.

Like a drunk Ringo

Don’t need a link it’s plastered all over the media
just a ignore it I’m sure it will just go away ..

A link would help for those of us who haven't heard anything about it surely?

It's Political correctness gone mad, I tell you...

You can't even daub racist graffiti with excrement on someone's car anymore!

We all know white people are the most persecuted demographic any road!

I've had enough of this country being taken over by foreigners. I'm gonna go and live in Spain!

I’m sane alright Lanc’s it just takes you a tad longer get to get the message but that’s ok ..

You can arrested for being English, and shot for flying the England flag these days.

Bring back *checks current rash of heavily edited memories on various social media sites* the 50s

SmudgetheClaret wrote:I’m sane alright Lanc’s it just takes you a tad longer get to get the message but that’s ok ..

judging from your spelling and grammar, it's going to take us all a while to get the message.

OP are you making **** up again? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the police take it more seriously if you call someone you hate one of your favourite insults than if you were to rob their house?

And you did this just to justify your hatred for anyone who disagrees with you regarding not bring a **** to others?

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.

I think being on here should be considered a hate crime.

fidelcastro wrote:judging from your spelling and grammar, it's going to take us all a while to get the message.

You should start a sentence with a capital letter...

It's just another area of their duties that our police appear to be underperforming in.

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...

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)?

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)?

He just hasn't thought it through.

It's called being a right-wing reactionary.

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)?

Yer but, snowflake, so ner...

Lancasterclaret wrote:A link would help for those of us who haven't heard anything about it surely?

I think the OP knows that if he provided a link then the liberal intelligentsia would unfairly undermine his argument with things like facts and logic.

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.

Oh. Really? So has this proposal from an MP in March already been passed as law, has it? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43303874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or are you making **** up again?

Ok I’ll stand up before all and admit “im a alcoholic in waiting and I can’t spell!

**edit** removed, forgot to quote the individual I was replying to.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Oh. Really? So has this proposal from an MP in March already been passed as law, has it? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43303874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or are you making **** up again?

Yes, it already falls under another section of the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... hate-crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You really need to stop being so hostile to opposing opinions. It's not personal...

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)?

And in what way did we need extra laws or a different emphasis to deal with Ms. Lancaster's murder?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Oh. Really? So has this proposal from an MP in March already been passed as law, has it? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43303874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or are you making **** up again?

You should learn how to research instead of your usual tactic of shouting loudest to try to stop anyone who disagrees with you. It would make you less of a ****. Not much, just slightly less.

The Nottinghamshire force have been the most zealous adopters of this and, if I may quote their doublespeak, 'Nottinghamshire Police defines hate crime as “Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”'

So it's a crime which isn't a crime and a crime entirely defined by the supposed victim's beliefs.

thatdberight wrote:You should learn how to research instead of your usual tactic of shouting loudest to try to stop anyone who disagrees with you. It would make you less of a ****. Not much, just slightly less.

The Nottinghamshire force have been the most zealous adopters of this and, if I may quote their doublespeak, 'Nottinghamshire Police defines hate crime as “Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”'

So it's a crime which isn't a crime and a crime entirely defined by the supposed victim's beliefs.

This is indeed the definition of a hate crime, it's the perception of anybody present, not necessarily the person/s who are the intended target.
That being said, Police forces are being forced by the government to adopt this stance when recording every crime reported to them, whether it be a real call for help, a genuine mistake or malicious call.
It's getting to the stage where crime is to be logged at first contact on the phone, without investigation into the matter. More time is taken with officers having to negate crime reports after actually speaking with those involved where quite often it is apparent no crime has taken place.
This is a major factor on crime figures rising

burnleymik wrote:Yes, it already falls under another section of the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... hate-crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You really need to stop being so hostile to opposing opinions. It's not personal...

"It's not a new law, just a new category of an existing one and it's a first for the UK"

So not only is it not a new law, its not actually wolf whistling that's a crime, its intimidating or threatening a woman that's the crime.

So do you think it's shouldn't be a crime to intimidate and threaten women?

thatdberight wrote:You should learn how to research instead of your usual tactic of shouting loudest to try to stop anyone who disagrees with you. It would make you less of a ****. Not much, just slightly less.

The Nottinghamshire force have been the most zealous adopters of this and, if I may quote their doublespeak, 'Nottinghamshire Police defines hate crime as “Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”'

So it's a crime which isn't a crime and a crime entirely defined by the supposed victim's beliefs.

If it was already a crime to wolf whistle the why was an MP talking about making it a crime this March?

You need to learn how to apply logic and stop accusing anyone who demonstrates your nonsense to be nonsense as simply trying to "shout the loudest". Because it makes you look like an idiot.

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Don’t need a link it’s plastered all over the media

Lancasterclaret wrote:A link would help for those of us who haven't heard anything about it surely?

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

Imploding Turtle wrote:"It's not a new law, just a new category of an existing one and it's a first for the UK"

So not only is it not a new law, its not actually wolf whistling that's a crime, its intimidating or threatening a woman that's the crime.

So do you think it's shouldn't be a crime to intimidate and threaten women?

Semantics. The wolf whistle is what is classed as the threat and intimidation. Again it is subjective and I think it cheapens the actual offenses of intimidation and threats. That is the problem with hate crime, it's all about if the person takes offense or not.

What is doesn't mean is that I am making sh#t up as you claim or that there is actually no law at all that can get you in trouble for wolf whistling. Stop try to back pedal.

Burnley police reported something on fb last weekend where an homophobic incident had happened on a local bus. They were appealing for information and the victim to come forward.

Somebody point out in the comments that his van was broken into the same night but only received a crime number.

Imploding Turtle wrote:If it was already a crime to wolf whistle the why was an MP talking about making it a crime this March?

You need to learn how to apply logic and stop accusing anyone who demonstrates your nonsense to be nonsense as simply trying to "shout the loudest". Because it makes you look like an idiot.

So you're running away from this because you can't find a way of explaining your previous comment. That's about right for your level of debate. Unless you're regurgitating something someone "on the hill" thought up for you, it's the musings of moronity.

PS: But it still makes me laugh. Out loud. Both its stupidity and how seriously you take yourself. So, please don't stop. Don't ever stop. As if you could...

MRG wrote:Burnley police reported something on fb last weekend where an homophobic incident had happened on a local bus. They were appealing for information and the victim to come forward.

Somebody point out in the comments that his van was broken into the same night but only received a crime number.

Ah the old correlation implying causation.

thatdberight wrote:So you're running away from this because you can't find a way of explaining your previous comment. That's about right for your level of debate. Unless you're regurgitating something someone "on the hill" thought up for you, it's the musings of moronity.

PS: But it still makes me laugh. Out loud. Both its stupidity and how seriously you take yourself. So, please don't stop. Don't ever stop. As if you could...

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.

MRG wrote:Burnley police reported something on fb last weekend where an homophobic incident had happened on a local bus. They were appealing for information and the victim to come forward.

Somebody point out in the comments that his van was broken into the same night but only received a crime number.

Bearing in mind the football world seems to find spitting one of the most disgusting things you can do, I'm wondering how those people would feel about someone giving a lad homophobic abuse and then tipping a bottle of p1ss on their head.

Absolutely right that the police should be appealing for information.

CombatClaret wrote:Ah the old correlation implying causation.

Above my level of intelligence I’m afraid. I don’t understand what your post means

Walton wrote:Bearing in mind the football world seems to find spitting one of the most disgusting things you can do, I'm wondering how those people would feel about someone giving a lad homophobic abuse and then tipping a bottle of p1ss on their head.

Absolutely right that the police should be appealing for information.

The point is, did it actually happen?

MRG wrote:Burnley police reported something on fb last weekend where an homophobic incident had happened on a local bus. They were appealing for information and the victim to come forward.

Somebody point out in the comments that his van was broken into the same night but only received a crime number.

Not that the two incidents are related, but if they were, which they’re definitely not, I think there may be more witnesses to an incident on a bus full of people than to someone’s van being broken into on what was probably a dark, quiet street. Just a thought. But hey, if you want to draw parallels between how the police deal with entirely different incidents then crack on.

MRG wrote:Burnley police reported something on fb last weekend where an homophobic incident had happened on a local bus. They were appealing for information and the victim to come forward.

Somebody point out in the comments that his van was broken into the same night but only received a crime number.

The first incident is done in public, presumably in front of other people and there is a strong possibility that there is evidence. The second incident, done at night, no one to witness it, strong possibility there is no evidence. What do you expect the police to do?

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.