News2 mins ago
Why Do Racists Think That They Can Get Away With It?
It’s it a bit arrogant to think that people around you wouldn’t be offended?
https:/
It’s like this man fell out of a space ship that came from 1972.
But seriously - why would someone shout this out, unless they were really drunk or high?
https:/
It’s like this man fell out of a space ship that came from 1972.
But seriously - why would someone shout this out, unless they were really drunk or high?
Answers
A drunken peabrain using the most pertinent insult to express its frustration is the most likely scenario. Unfortunatel
12:12 Tue 11th Dec 2018
Since the Brexit vote, this sort of behaviour has been on the rise again - the "rotten johnny foreigner" syndrome of the Little Englanders.
——————
You’ve obviously not attended a football league match any time in the last 4 decades.
Nothing has changed during that time, despite all the Kick It Out and Respect campaigns, it’s purely the football ‘supporter’ demographic.
——————
You’ve obviously not attended a football league match any time in the last 4 decades.
Nothing has changed during that time, despite all the Kick It Out and Respect campaigns, it’s purely the football ‘supporter’ demographic.
Canary at 16:15 is talking out his ***.
This sort of thing has been shouted at sports events for ever and has FA to do with Brexit.
But let’s not that fact get in the way Canary.
Insults happen all the time to anyone and everyone for different reasons and any and every difference will be jumped on and used. Calling out someone and using black or indeed any ethnic determination will insight outrage and in this day and age of immediate outrage is daft. Because we all know you can insult someone all you like but you can’t use anything that distinguishes them as different from yourself.
This sort of thing has been shouted at sports events for ever and has FA to do with Brexit.
But let’s not that fact get in the way Canary.
Insults happen all the time to anyone and everyone for different reasons and any and every difference will be jumped on and used. Calling out someone and using black or indeed any ethnic determination will insight outrage and in this day and age of immediate outrage is daft. Because we all know you can insult someone all you like but you can’t use anything that distinguishes them as different from yourself.
“NJ
What you wrote at 16:41 is rubbish. One off my best mates is a copper and he is privy to what is files under the umbrella of ‘hate crime’.
Seriously - you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
I think I do.
You told me the definition of “hate crime” used by the police. It’s only their definition – there is no statute or, as far as I know, precedent which defines it – and they use it purely for their own administrative purposes, no doubt as they are told by the Home Office. But nonetheless I agreed with you. I also suggested that quite a lot of crime that falls under that definition involves no violence or incitement to violence. I said that to suggest that if the police were to prioritise the use of their resources then such non-violent crime should come low down the pecking order (as should such other exhibitions of “hatred” as wolf-whistling at an attractive lady as she walks past a building site). So are you suggesting that such crime is promoted and investigated at the expense of, say, knife crime when something has to give?
I would also claim to know what I am talking about when I say that the very last person you should consult on matters legal is a serving police officer – even if he is one of your best mates.
What you wrote at 16:41 is rubbish. One off my best mates is a copper and he is privy to what is files under the umbrella of ‘hate crime’.
Seriously - you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
I think I do.
You told me the definition of “hate crime” used by the police. It’s only their definition – there is no statute or, as far as I know, precedent which defines it – and they use it purely for their own administrative purposes, no doubt as they are told by the Home Office. But nonetheless I agreed with you. I also suggested that quite a lot of crime that falls under that definition involves no violence or incitement to violence. I said that to suggest that if the police were to prioritise the use of their resources then such non-violent crime should come low down the pecking order (as should such other exhibitions of “hatred” as wolf-whistling at an attractive lady as she walks past a building site). So are you suggesting that such crime is promoted and investigated at the expense of, say, knife crime when something has to give?
I would also claim to know what I am talking about when I say that the very last person you should consult on matters legal is a serving police officer – even if he is one of your best mates.
NJ
You’re smarter than that.
Don’t read a newspaper and regurgitate it.
The mistake you make is to assume hate crime is non-violent.
Stalking falls under the auspices of then hate crime divisions, as does targetted abuse.
You think that physical assault is worse than verbal assualt?
If an elderly couple live in fear of going home because they face a barrage of insults as they leave an enter their home - is that worse or better than a 23 year old whose punched in the face during a Friday night drink up.
You’re smarter than that.
Don’t read a newspaper and regurgitate it.
The mistake you make is to assume hate crime is non-violent.
Stalking falls under the auspices of then hate crime divisions, as does targetted abuse.
You think that physical assault is worse than verbal assualt?
If an elderly couple live in fear of going home because they face a barrage of insults as they leave an enter their home - is that worse or better than a 23 year old whose punched in the face during a Friday night drink up.
If you really want to concentrate just on your question rather than the wider debate then Racists think that they can get away with it because most of the time, with what I would call “low level” racism, they do. So do many burglars, drunk drivers, and domestic violence perpetrators. In fact, almost everybody who commits a criminal offence believes they will get away with it and many of them do. Mr Sterling's experience as a victim is not exceptional.
All sorts of people suffer all sorts of verbal abuse day in day out from the mouths of people who are simply too badly mannered, badly behaved and ignorant to know any better. But when push comes to shove the police cannot deal with all such complaints. Being abused because one is fat or has ginger hair is just as distressing to the victims as being racially abused is. They are abused for their physical attributes which, by and large, they can do nothing about. Racial abuse has a special significance because it has been subject to very high profile debate and legislation but the effect on the victim is no more or less profound than any other similarly targeted group. But the others don’t have a trump card to play and are not usually on the telly when the incident happens.
All sorts of people suffer all sorts of verbal abuse day in day out from the mouths of people who are simply too badly mannered, badly behaved and ignorant to know any better. But when push comes to shove the police cannot deal with all such complaints. Being abused because one is fat or has ginger hair is just as distressing to the victims as being racially abused is. They are abused for their physical attributes which, by and large, they can do nothing about. Racial abuse has a special significance because it has been subject to very high profile debate and legislation but the effect on the victim is no more or less profound than any other similarly targeted group. But the others don’t have a trump card to play and are not usually on the telly when the incident happens.
I would suspect that everyone around the chap heard quite clearly what he said. The fact no-one claims to have heard him could mean they are of the same mind set or, of course, they could just be closing ranks. Chelsea are a club who have banned supporters for life in the past - sometimes just to be on the safe side - so i would expect him to be banned for life should he ever be identified. That would hurt him much more than any fine, if he is a true supporter of the club.
You misunderstand me, sp (which may be my fault).
“The mistake you make is to assume hate crime is non-violent.
I made no such assumption. What I do assume is that not all hate-crime is violent – a different think entirely.
“Stalking falls under the auspices of then hate crime divisions, as does targetted abuse.”
Yes I know. These sort of ongoing offences are clearly more serious and warrant more attention than the one suffered by Mr Sterling.
“You think that physical assault is worse than verbal assualt?”
Yes I do. And so does the UK’s legal system. If you look at the sentencing guidelines for any offence which can include violence or not you will find that the offence is always, always “aggravated” by physical violence. The law makes a clear distinction between purely verbal abuse and physical assault and sentencers are told to adjust their sentences accordingly. It operates on the “sticks and stones” principle mentioned earlier on the basis that a mouthful of abuse is less serious than a smack in the mouth.
The option you provided in your last paragraph is not appropriate. All offences must be prioritised by the police but to suggest that experiences such as that suffered by Mr Sterling at the weekend warrant the diversion of resources away from far more serious matters does not really hold up to scrutiny.
“The mistake you make is to assume hate crime is non-violent.
I made no such assumption. What I do assume is that not all hate-crime is violent – a different think entirely.
“Stalking falls under the auspices of then hate crime divisions, as does targetted abuse.”
Yes I know. These sort of ongoing offences are clearly more serious and warrant more attention than the one suffered by Mr Sterling.
“You think that physical assault is worse than verbal assualt?”
Yes I do. And so does the UK’s legal system. If you look at the sentencing guidelines for any offence which can include violence or not you will find that the offence is always, always “aggravated” by physical violence. The law makes a clear distinction between purely verbal abuse and physical assault and sentencers are told to adjust their sentences accordingly. It operates on the “sticks and stones” principle mentioned earlier on the basis that a mouthful of abuse is less serious than a smack in the mouth.
The option you provided in your last paragraph is not appropriate. All offences must be prioritised by the police but to suggest that experiences such as that suffered by Mr Sterling at the weekend warrant the diversion of resources away from far more serious matters does not really hold up to scrutiny.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV11 mins ago
I Wonder How Long Gulliver Will...
Politics13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.