You look like my lesbian nana..

[cambridgeshire canary 6,755]

So are we thinking that was really grounds for SEVEN police officers to turn up and drag an autistic child away to be thrown in a cell and left to rot?

 

Interesting how if you get burgled or robbed the police will tell you they are too busy to send just one police officer to you isn't it?

Edited August 12, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[Nuff Said 5,149]

I’m guessing this is a news story, rather than a dream you had last night CC?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,755]

2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m guessing this is a news story, rather than a dream you had last night CC?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/11/girl-arrested-lesbian-nana-comment-no-action-west-yorkshire/

 

To make a long story short 16 year old autistic teenager tells short haired butch looking female police officer that she "looks like my lesbian grandmother". Said police officer clearly takes great offence to this and seemingly goes for the panic button and so seven police officers turn up and forcibly drag said autistic child away, drive her to the police station and throw her in a cell.

Story hits the news, kid gets released with no charges police say "we will learn lesson from this we promise.." with the female officer seemingly not getting in any trouble and the police say case closed.

Edited August 12, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

another attitude check of our police it seems, a law to themselves.

They had to arrest her with a reason. was it hate speech of drunken and disorderly behaviour, or just because we can.?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

23 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

another attitude check of our police it seems, a law to themselves.

They had to arrest her with a reason. was it hate speech of drunken and disorderly behaviour, or just because we can.?

Not a law to themselves at all in this case. The female officer in question felt like she was under attack from a comment. Regardless of whether she's a lesbian, it's understandable that she'd have considered it to be abusive.  For a hate crime to be committed, it's only necessary for the target to perceive themselves to be a target, and a comment about someone's sexuality fits the bill. Had a member of the public been the complainant then the police would have been obliged to follow up.

What does Craig Murray think about it?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,755]

59 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Not a law to themselves at all in this case. The female officer in question felt like she was under attack from a comment. Regardless of whether she's a lesbian, it's understandable that she'd have considered it to be abusive.  For a hate crime to be committed, it's only necessary for the target to perceive themselves to be a target, and a comment about someone's sexuality fits the bill. Had a member of the public been the complainant then the police would have been obliged to follow up.

What does Craig Murray think about it?

So it takes seven officers to grab an Autistic child and drag her away to a station due to one officer 'feeling offended' yet if you get robbed or burgled the police are too busy to see you?

 

Good to know

Edited August 14, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[Pyro Pete 1,906]

The same story in The Mirror tells it slightly differently.

Reportedly, the teenager had been found drunk in Leeds city centre at 1am, and was taken home by the police, where this remark was made.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-says-autistic-girl-who-30683505

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

So it takes seven officers to grab an Autistic child and drag her away to a station due to one officer 'feeling offended' yet if you get robbed or burgled the police are too busy to see you?

 

Good to know

A hate crime is defined as: "'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."

That includes verbal abuse.

Autistic people can be difficult to restrain. As the law is written, if the officer saw it as a hate crime against her, regardless of who's saying it, then it's a hate crime against her. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I am saying that's the way the law is worded.

We don't know anything about the officer in question. Is she a lesbian? Is she allowed to be upset by the remark regardless of whether she's a lesbian or not? Is it for her to make overall judgement as to whether there's sufficient mitigation for the remarks, or is she entitled to be offended by an offensive remark like anyone else and want it dealt with the way many ordinary citizens would? How is she to know whether it's just a gobby family claiming autism just to be difficult?

[Herman 9,796]

3 hours ago, Pyro Pete said:

The same story in The Mirror tells it slightly differently.

Reportedly, the teenager had been found drunk in Leeds city centre at 1am, and was taken home by the police, where this remark was made.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-says-autistic-girl-who-30683505

This feels like one of those stories where the right wing media are using a small amount of the facts to push their shoddy agenda.

[Pyro Pete 1,906]

19 minutes ago, Herman said:

This feels like one of those stories where the right wing media are using a small amount of the facts to push their shoddy agenda.

You won't find me disagreeing on that point.

But I've seen a bit of the video and, even leaving aside the teenager's autism, it still looks heavy-handed.

If the police banged up every intoxicated teenager who got a bit mouthy with them, the cells would be bursting.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Awful stuff.

But let's be honest, it barely makes the Top 100 of S(cummy acts committed by Yorkshire Police Officers. 

[Barbe bleu 829]

1 hour ago, Pyro Pete said:

You won't find me disagreeing on that point.

But I've seen a bit of the video and, even leaving aside the teenager's autism, it still looks heavy-handed.

If the police banged up every intoxicated teenager who got a bit mouthy with them, the cells would be 

 Just walking away is a skill that needs to be learnt.  Robocop does need to come out sometimes, other times Murphy needs to stay in the recharge bay.

Strikes me that arresting a teenage girl you have already identified as drunk and vulnerable for making abusive comments is always going to be morenhassle than it could possibly be worth

 

 

 

[Barbe bleu 829]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A hate crime is defined as: "'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be...

...As the law is written, if the officer saw it as a hate crime against her, regardless of who's saying it, then it's a hate crime against her. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I am saying that's the way the law is worded.

I'm not sure this is 100%. The quoted definition appears to be one written by the CPS and police for use in recording and investigating alleged offences, I'm not sure it is a definition that appears in statute or the common law.

Even if that were the definition of the aggravating factor it would still be necessary to prove the offence itself.   

I'm not a criminal lawyer though so don't rely on me, I'm just adding possible nuance to the debate

Edited August 14, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Aggy 757]

25 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not sure this is 100%. The quoyef definition appears to be one written by the CPS and police for use in recording and investigating alleged offences, I'm not sure it is a definition that appears in statute or the common law.

Even if that were the definition of the aggravating factor it would still be necessary to prove the offence itself.   

I'm not a criminal lawyer though so don't rely on me, I'm just adding possible nuance to the debate

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2021/12/6.7808_LC_Hate_Crime_Summary_Dec21_WEB.pdf
“The law requires that to be convicted of a hate crime, the defendant must be proven to have committed a crime (the “base offence”) and also:
1. to have been “motivated by hostility” towards the group with the protected characteristic (for example, the victim’s religion); or
2. to have “demonstrated hostility” towards the victim on the basis of the protected characteristic at the time of committing the offence (for example, through the use of a homophobic slur).

The police use a wider definition for recording and monitoring purposes, based on the victim’s perception. In the year ending March 2021, there were 124,091 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales.2 However, it is the definition used in the criminal law (requiring proof of the defendant’s hostility), not the police recording definition (based on the victim’s perception of the defendant’s hostility or prejudice), which is the subject of this review.

In addition to general hate crime laws, there are also a number of specific “hate speech” offences. These include offences of inciting or “stirring up” hatred (for example through the dissemination of inflammatory racist material) and the offence of “racialist chanting” at a football match.”

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2021/12/6.7808_LC_Hate_Crime_Summary_Dec21_WEB.pdf
“The law requires that to be convicted of a hate crime, the defendant must be proven to have committed a crime (the “base offence”) and also:
1. to have been “motivated by hostility” towards the group with the protected characteristic (for example, the victim’s religion); or
2. to have “demonstrated hostility” towards the victim on the basis of the protected characteristic at the time of committing the offence (for example, through the use of a homophobic slur).

The police use a wider definition for recording and monitoring purposes, based on the victim’s perception. In the year ending March 2021, there were 124,091 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales.2 However, it is the definition used in the criminal law (requiring proof of the defendant’s hostility), not the police recording definition (based on the victim’s perception of the defendant’s hostility or prejudice), which is the subject of this review.

In addition to general hate crime laws, there are also a number of specific “hate speech” offences. These include offences of inciting or “stirring up” hatred (for example through the dissemination of inflammatory racist material) and the offence of “racialist chanting” at a football match.”

Thanks for the link. Very interesting stuff. This bit strikes me as astounding. Where is the sense in the police recording things that aren't actually crimes by the legal definition? Haven't they got better things to do?

[Barbe bleu 829]

40 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Thanks for the link. Very interesting stuff. This bit strikes me as astounding. Where is the sense in the police recording things that aren't actually crimes by the legal definition? Haven't they got better things to do?

The fact that they record things this way doesn't exclude the possibility that they record things other ways too.  

If its a two minute job that captures perceptions then I have no issue.  But if it becomes an industry in its own right then questions should be asked.

 

[Aggy 757]

58 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Thanks for the link. Very interesting stuff. This bit strikes me as astounding. Where is the sense in the police recording things that aren't actually crimes by the legal definition? Haven't they got better things to do?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice-on-the-recording-and-retention-of-personal-data-accessible

 

lengthy - from para 27 may be of interest. Doesn’t answer your question re whether they’ve got better things to do but shows what and why they record.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Aggy

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

What i want to know is.... did the Cop really look like her lesbian Nan? 

[Barbe bleu 829]

3 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

What i want to know is.... did the Cop really look like her lesbian Nan? 

I want to know which part offended the copper most,  The lesbian bit, or the nanny bit

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Sounds like a standard drunk and disorderly arrest… presume released without charge? Had a similar one in my wild, younger days for being sarcastic to an officer 😅

Edited August 15, 2023 by Tetteys Jig

[Barbe bleu 829]

22 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

Sounds like a standard drunk and disorderly arrest… presume released without charge? Had a similar one in my wild, younger days for being sarcastic to an officer 😅

We've all seen arrests like yours, half the time the arrest is made because that person is in a public place and a threat to themselves as much as anyone else. But in this case the girl had already been taken home because she was vulnerable. 

Was this girl such a threat to whoever that she then needed to be taken away from a place that officers had deemed safe just minutes before? Or did the alphaing robocop come out when the copper really just needed to walk away?

Edited August 15, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

We've all seen arrests like yours, half the time the arrest is made because that person is in a public place and a threat to themselves as much as anyone else. But in this case the girl had already been taken home because she was vulnerable. 

Was this girl such a threat to whoever that she then needed to be taken away from a place that officers had deemed safe just minutes before? Or did the alphaing robocop come out when the copper really just needed to walk away?

I don't think we have the full story. I think this must have happened as an aside in a bigger raid to explain having 7 police at the incident.

My big takeaway from this is that hate speech law is absurdly complicated. The fact that a report on what's wrong with the law is so long in itself is a damning indictment underlining that the legislation itself isn't fit for purpose.

Is the public seriously expected to know where it stands against this labyrinthine legal construct in the conduct of everyone's day to day lives?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 14/08/2023 at 11:01, littleyellowbirdie said:

Not a law to themselves at all in this case. The female officer in question felt like she was under attack from a comment. Regardless of whether she's a lesbian, it's understandable that she'd have considered it to be abusive.  For a hate crime to be committed, it's only necessary for the target to perceive themselves to be a target, and a comment about someone's sexuality fits the bill. Had a member of the public been the complainant then the police would have been obliged to follow up.

What does Craig Murray think about it?

go and ask him. I'm sure you get a response from him.

[Renskay 36]

On 14/08/2023 at 12:01, littleyellowbirdie said:

Not a law to themselves at all in this case. The female officer in question felt like she was under attack from a comment. Regardless of whether she's a lesbian, it's understandable that she'd have considered it to be abusive.  For a hate crime to be committed, it's only necessary for the target to perceive themselves to be a target, and a comment about someone's sexuality fits the bill. Had a member of the public been the complainant then the police would have been obliged to follow up.

What does Craig Murray think about it?

I'm genuinely astounded someone actually exists who can take the side of the police in this incident.

How do they taste?

[Renskay 36]

On 14/08/2023 at 17:50, canarydan23 said:

Awful stuff.

But let's be honest, it barely makes the Top 100 of S(cummy acts committed by Yorkshire Police Officers. 

This comes to mind.

[Renskay 36]

On 15/08/2023 at 08:56, Tetteys Jig said:

Sounds like a standard drunk and disorderly arrest… presume released without charge? Had a similar one in my wild, younger days for being sarcastic to an officer 😅

 

 

[Naturalcynic 641]

On 14/08/2023 at 20:45, littleyellowbirdie said:

Thanks for the link. Very interesting stuff. This bit strikes me as astounding. Where is the sense in the police recording things that aren't actually crimes by the legal definition? Haven't they got better things to do?

As in “non-crime hate incidents”?  No idea which genius dreamt that one up and then encouraged the Police to record them.