No doubt hate crime on the rise.

[Odds]

And i'm not interested in your lack of interest which is less interesting than you...think?

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

You should read this https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-cont...-Parliamentary-Inquiry-intoAntisemitism-1.pdf

It answers your question (or rather corrects your thinking).

No it really is worth you reading the whole thing..

Motorbiking made an unsubstantiated claim, then puts the responsibility on you to disprove his claim.
The correct approach is to make the claim, provides an appropriate quote from an appropriate source, and provide a link to the source to allow the reader to verify that the quote is accurate and refers to whatever the claimant says it refers.

 

[Andydevon]

And Himmy takes the prize for the comedy post of the month

 

[JohnD]

No it really is worth you reading the whole thing..

Which is not a UK law so it does not support your attempts to shore up filly's untrue claim.

 

[JonathanM]

It's been well documented on here in numerous comments that the criteria is:
"When it is perceived by the victim, or any other person".
The Guidelines under discussion are purely guidelines for the process of the investigation, when and if a crime is 'perceived' to be a hate-crime.

I was probably looking for something too specific.

So, these might be the relevant bits. I can see a scenario now where, for instance, somebody has come forward who is aware that this was an area where many homophobic crimes take place. So, although there is no evidence that this is a hate crime, the threshold for "perceiving" has been reached.

Any other person

1.15 A crime should be recorded as a hate crime or non-crime hate incident if it is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility. It should not, however, be recorded as such if it is based on the perception of a person or group who has no knowledge of the victim, crime or area, and who may be responding to media or internet stories, or who is reporting for a political or similar motive.

1.18 Any other person could refer to any one of a number of people, including: ■ police officers or staff police officers or staff ■ witnesses ■ family members ■ members of civil society organisations who know the victim, the crime or hate crimes in the locality, such as a third-party reporting charity ■ a carer or other professional who supports the victim ■ someone who has knowledge of hate crime in the area – this could include many professionals and experts, eg, the manager of an education centre used by people with learning disabilities who regularly receives reports from students who have been victims of abuse ■ a person from within the group targeted by the hostility

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

I was probably looking for something too specific.

So, these might be the relevant bits. I can see a scenario now where, for instance, somebody has come forward who is aware that this was an area where many homophobic crimes take place. So, although there is no evidence that this is a hate crime, the threshold for "perceiving" has been reached.

I suppose it might fit the bill, if they are familiar with the victims and their sexuality, or with the perpetrator and his known bigotry.
We don't know if this was the case in this instance. So to focus on one crime, in this discussion, is not considering the discussion properly. It's isolating one crime to resolve a wider issue.

 

[motorbiking]

Which is not a UK law so it does not support your attempts to shore up filly's untrue claim.

Having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up by comparing Jews to Nazis. Further any reasonable and rational person would find comparing Jews to Nazis likely to be offensive or insulting to Jews.
Sec 19 of the Public Order Act makes this very clearly an offence. Further, because its motivated by hostility to Jews, it's an aggravated offence.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

why not do it the other way round and avoid having lots of hate crimes logged that aren't hate crimes.

Why?

There's an obvious possibility of it being a hate crime.

 

[motorbiking]

Why?

There's an obvious possibility of it being a hate crime.

What obvious possibility? Remember every single person is a member of one or more protected groups.

Are you suggesting it's a hate crime because the victims were homosexual?

If so do you find it odd for the Police to say there was no evidence of a homophobic motive.

It would lead to all crimes being flagged as hate crimes.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up by comparing Jews to Nazis. Further any reasonable and rational person would find comparing Jews to Nazis likely to be offensive or insulting to Jews.
Sec 19 of the Public Order Act makes this very clearly an offence. Further, because its motivated by hostility to Jews, it's an aggravated offence.

Can't see why religion or ethnicity should exempt anyone from legitimate criticism.

The simple act of comparing Jews to Nazis is not proof of the intention of fomenting hatred.
Legitimate criticism is a fair defence, under the quoted Act, if it's not intended to stir up racial hatred.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

What obvious possibility? Remember every single person is a member of one or more protected groups.

...

It would lead to all crimes being flagged as hate crimes.

Nonsense. The definition of hate crime does not cover all the characteristics.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

What obvious possibility? Remember every single person is a member of one or more protected groups.

Are you suggesting it's a hate crime because the victims were homosexual?

If so do you find it odd for the Police to say there was no evidence of a homophobic motive.

It would lead to all crimes being flagged as hate crimes.

No I don't think it's odd.

I don't have all the info. But there is am obvious possibility.

Do you have all the info needed to solve the crime

 

[JonathanM]

Nonsense. The definition of hate crime does not cover all the characteristics.

It covers being English, Sottish or Welsh! At least I think it does. That would be a huge number of people.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

It covers being English, Sottish or Welsh! At least I think it does. That would be a huge number of people.

Does it cover nationality? Or race?

 

[JonathanM]

Does it cover nationality? Or race?

It actually says race, racial group or ethnic background. This is what is says:

A person’s race or perceived race, or – any racial group or ethnic background including countries within the United Kingdom and Gypsy and Traveller groups

I've just being reading that English is an ethnic group.