National Hate Crime Awareness Week 2021 ~ Thought crime

[2112]

Just now, John Wright said:

The whole gamut.

Why are the police not taking action? Surely if it’s verbal or physical or any other type they can tie in as a hate crime, without the need for legislation. 

[John Wright]

Just now, 2112 said:

Why are the police not taking action? Surely if it’s verbal or physical or any other type they can tie in as a hate crime, without the need for legislation. 

They are. As I say, it’s an aggravating factor in sentencing. It’s not an additional parallel offence. 

[WTF]

will Trans Mann  change its name ??  someone must be getting offended by now.

[Ghost Ship]

7 hours ago, John Wright said:

By that argument we wouldn’t have many laws. There aren’t many money launderers, even fewer commit incest, bigamy, and actually there isn’t lots of under age sex or child abuse.

Theres a lot more hate crime. Hate crime is normally an aggravating factor of an existing offence anyway. Attracting a heavier penalty. There’s probably more hate crime than all of the categories I listed above.

But irrespective of what areas of criminal law or sentencing are under discussion, is it appropriate that the police force should be either commenting on or suggesting the creation of new laws rather than leaving it to democratically elected (and supposedly "accountable") politicians?  I don't see the police as being in a sufficiently well-informed  position to put forward such value judgments - in fact I'd go further and say their position as guardians of the law should disqualify them from doing so.

I haven't lived on the island since the mid-80s, but I understand from reading some of the threads on here that during the 90s(?) the Manx police had a shameful record of persecuting and entrapping gay people, and did so to a far greater and more malicious extent than just enforcing the then legislation required.  That may have been over 20 years ago and the individuals concerned moved on or died, but why would anybody take seriously suggestions for legislation from the police?  People might listen to them quite happily when they are proposing laws that those people agree with, but what if the proposals are not so agreeable?

I'm partly interested because I was listening to Archive on Radio 4 earlier this evening about the death of David Oluwale in Leeds 50 years ago and the subsequent trial for manslaughter of two police officers.  It tells a story of brutal racism and violence running through the police in Leeds.  Yes it was 50 years ago, but listening to the behaviour that appeared then to be relatively common in the police, they are the last people who I'd listen to when it came to moral value judgments.  (And it sounds like the perfect example of a hate crime:  Archive on 4 - Remember Oluwale - BBC Sounds )

The police should stick to enforcing whatever the current law is and keep quiet as to how it might be changed.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Ghost Ship

[John Wright]

4 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

But irrespective of what areas of criminal law or sentencing are under discussion, is it appropriate that the police force should be either commenting on or suggesting the creation of new laws rather than leaving it to democratically elected (and supposedly "accountable") politicians?  I don't see the police as being in a sufficiently well-informed  position to put forward such value judgments - in fact I'd go further and say their position as guardians of the law should disqualify them from doing so.

I haven't lived on the island since the mid-80s, but I understand from reading some of the threads on here that during the 90s(?) the Manx police had a shameful record of persecuting and entrapping gay people, and did so to a far greater and more malicious extent than just enforcing the then legislation required.  That may have been over 20 years ago and the individuals concerned moved on or died, but why would anybody take seriously suggestions for legislation from the police?  People might listen to them quite happily when they are proposing laws that those people agree with, but what if the proposals are not so agreeable?

I'm partly interested because I was listening to Archive on Radio 4 earlier this evening about the death of David Oluwale in Leeds 50 years ago and the subsequent trial for manslaughter of two police officers.  It tells a story of brutal racism and violence running through the police in Leeds.  Yes it was 50 years ago, but listening to the behaviour that appeared then to be relatively common in the police, they are the last people who I'd listen to when it came to moral value judgments.  (And it sounds like the perfect example of a hate crime:  Archive on 4 - Remember Oluwale - BBC Sounds )

The police should stick to enforcing whatever the current law is and keep quiet as to how it might be changed.

You’re conflating two issues. They’re related.because the police are part of, and representative of, the wider public.

So gross and unacceptable unprofessionalism reflected in police brutality, racism, homophobia, or just not bothering to investigate black deaths properly ( Stephen Lawrence ) etc is clearly a reflection of societal attitudes as well as institutional attitudes in the police service.

But, having a categorisation of crime that expressly criminalises hate offences helps the police, and, by extension, society, by allowing proper recording, and, where appropriate, action plans to tackle.

The police have always campaigned. It’s from their lived and worked experience, applying the law as it is, that the holes become apparent. Don’t think motoring safety policy isn’t driven by the police. You only have to read Dels posts on here over the years. OK, the politicians haven’t reacted as he, and the police, wanted.

There are lots of crimes here with a hate element. I see them. I’ve experienced them. I advise offenders who’ve committed them ( when I’m duty advocate ). Lots of its casual. Low level. But as we recognise the identities and rights of gay, trans, women, BAME, faiths, disabled etc as equal and valid society has to try to ensure their opportunity to live their best lives equally and without threat.

After all, we recognised it for the police years ago. In my day student demos were replete with chants about porcine plod. That’s been an offence for years under Public Order as officers, as part of the public, and as police, are offended.

Its not policing thought. It’s not 1984. It fairly simple. It saying “commit an offence whilst screaming racist, trans, homophobic, ablist, abuse and it’s elevated to another level. There’s lots of that in criminal law, a scale. Common assault, assault, ABH, GBH ( with or without intent/a weapon )

[Anyone]

On 10/15/2021 at 3:01 PM, thommo2010 said:

So you support one of the Diddy teams, jealousy is a terrible thing

You must be a hun them. Thommo is after all a bit of a hun name. I get you.

[Anyone]

For those of not in the know Rangers fans like Thommo have a tendancy to drag their knuckles behind them. Commonly known as Orcs rather than Huns .