hate crime against sub cultures now recorded

It's funny they do stuff like this because it just leads way to more discrimination when the government are labelling people aswell.

Also pretty ridiculous that they don't just ignore whether its motivated due to the victims culture and just get them for the crime they committed. It's just a waste of time labelling it as a "hate crime" next we'll have a hate crime against normies!
 
doofer said:
To me, this comes across as: If certain types are attacked then action will be taken and punishments will be higher.

But the thing is, ALL attacks to anyone should be treated the same

This will only end up as some Police 'priority' Policy where 'normal' crimes will be low priority or ignored so they can fulfil their Govt. Targets relating to 'hate' crimes or risk losing funding.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is how it seemed to me.
 
Theophany said:
:p

Well the circumstances and motives are somewhat different, in my mind at least.

For example, one guy beats up another outside a nightclub for 'touching his girlfriend' or 'looking at him funny' or something - ABH/GBH suffices.

Conversely, the same guy beats up another for nothing more than the way they dress or look - ABH/GBH does not suffice.
Click to expand...

Might it not be a better principles based approach to record it as "provoked" and "unprovoked" ABH/GBH rather than trying to identify specific groups who get hate crime recorded? My concern would be that if it is too prescriptive in terms of who fits into certain criteria then that risks other groups (or individuals) being overlooked to a degree. I accept the terms regarding provocation are a bit nebulous but they're deliberately so to allow a bit of discretion to be applied - not always ideal for law as it will inevitably lead to some inconsistencies in sentencing but being too rules based is worse in my view as it often means that the application of justice is to the letter of the law rather than the spirit and so misses a number of crimes.
 
If this is the case plenty of hate crime went on round my ends when I was a youth. Every Fri/Sat/Sunday the ****** would come down the local skate park and pick on the metal heads and goths.

XeNoN89 said:
In before reports of mass emo hate attacks on emo's due to self harm
Click to expand...



lol
 
I don't get the point in this.

I don't care if someone was attacked because it is sub culture hate crime, if it is homophobia, if it is racism, etc. I just care that someone was attacked.
Don't see the need to call it a "hate-crime attack" or a "homophobic assault"... so would it have been fine if they assaulted a straight guy? No, it's just the fact that someone was attacked that is important regardless of the reason why.
 
Just do them for the crime they have committed, ignoring the motive. If you make attacking a subculture a hate crime, the only real difference we will see is people seeing it as that subculture getting special treatment, inciting more crime.

I have nothing against recording attacks on subcultures for statistical purposes. It makes sense to be able to see and concentrate on groups that are attacked more. But it has to stay as for statistical purposes.
 
The problem with 'hate crimes' is it becomes the automatic assumption it seems to me. 5 white men attack a black man and it's automatically assumed it was a 'hate crime' regardless of whether racial slurs were used at the time.

There was a gay guy that got killed a few years ago and the media an dthe police all came out with the 'hate crime' thing, the Guardian ran articles on gay people being attacked etc and in the end it turned out it was another gay man who had killed him and it had nothing to do with homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
Westyfield2 said:
I don't get the point in this.

I don't care if someone was attacked because it is sub culture hate crime, if it is homophobia, if it is racism, etc. I just care that someone was attacked.
Don't see the need to call it a "hate-crime attack" or a "homophobic assault"... so would it have been fine if they assaulted a straight guy? No, it's just the fact that someone was attacked that is important regardless of the reason why.
Click to expand...

The police are there to prevent crime just as much as to detect and deal with it. How can they prevent crime without knowing the reasons why it happens?
 
Goth's deserve all they get, but I did laugh when it was mentioned that punks (or at least what passes for them nowadays) would be protected too.

The world's gone mad! Punks should be dishing out the pain and misery, not getting a soothing hug from the ol' bill.

'There, there, Mr. Vicious. Don't listen to the nasty people... You're not a **** bass player.' :p
 
CaNsA said:
Is it?
Or has it opened the flood gates for a "blanket hate crime" law to be abused by the police?

inb4
"I am not a goth, I am a unique individual who socialises with other unique individuals"
Click to expand...

Don't do bad things to other people for stupid reasons that are quite frankly none of your business and you'll be OK. You shouldn't be allowed to beat down a kid just because he likes to wear a tracksuit. I would think our current laws would cover that of course but apparently not.
 
It's guano, why is getting beaten up by chavs any worse if you have certain types of clothes on?
 
semi-pro waster said:
Might it not be a better principles based approach to record it as "provoked" and "unprovoked" ABH/GBH rather than trying to identify specific groups who get hate crime recorded? My concern would be that if it is too prescriptive in terms of who fits into certain criteria then that risks other groups (or individuals) being overlooked to a degree. I accept the terms regarding provocation are a bit nebulous but they're deliberately so to allow a bit of discretion to be applied - not always ideal for law as it will inevitably lead to some inconsistencies in sentencing but being too rules based is worse in my view as it often means that the application of justice is to the letter of the law rather than the spirit and so misses a number of crimes.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and there is definite merit in it, but I don't believe that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. What seems to be the bigger issue around this is the overly emotive language used to describe the act, "hate crime" stirs up all kinds of distracting rhetoric.

Provocation is of course an important consideration in cases like these, but as you say, it is not the most concrete of definitions and provocation to one could be totally innocent to another; my point is that in the event of clear provocation then the GMP's proposed 'hate crime' recordings aren't really of any relevance. In the event of no discernible provocation being made, I would say it is very much of relevance to have the recording made against the individual(s). If they are unable to restrain themselves from physicality with somebody who wears a Cradle of Filth T-shirt or has a green mohawk, I'd be concerned about what other members of society may incite them to.

That being said, it should not be a point-scoring system whereby those 'groups' with the least strikes against them should be treated favourably whilst those with the most strikes should be vilified or treated unfairly; as far as I am concerned it should not be taken above the level of the individual(s) who commit the offences.

CaNsA said:
It's guano, why is getting beaten up by chavs any worse if you have certain types of clothes on?
Click to expand...

I feel like you're missing the point. It's not about the severity of the act itself, it's about determining a motivation for it to accurately and justly sentence the offender.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom