Discussion:
Perception of hate senior to fact
Add Reply
pullgees
2017-08-05 17:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person .... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."

http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
tim...
2017-08-06 11:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?

tim
pullgees
2017-08-06 14:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
pensive hamster
2017-08-06 17:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".

It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
pullgees
2017-08-06 19:11:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".
It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
Ah well maybe you can clear up for me that it really does take more than mere perception by the victim for a hate crime to have occurred in law.
pensive hamster
2017-08-06 22:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".
It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
Ah well maybe you can clear up for me that it really does take more than mere perception by the victim for a hate crime to have occurred in law.
As I understand it, first there has to be a crime (i.e. a criminal
offence), and you need evidence to prove a crime has been
committed.

Classifying a crime as a hate crime then seems to be a
subsidiary or supplementary process.

More here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate-crime/

What is hate crime?

The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) have agreed a common definition
of hate crime which is:

"...any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any
other person, to be motivated by a 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 a
hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or
perceived to be transgender."

Key words in the definition are "hostility" and "prejudice", words
which are used in their ordinary, everyday sense. The prosecution
does not therefore need to prove hatred as the motivating factor
behind an offence. Nor does the whole offence need to be
motivated by hostility. It can provide the sole reason for the
offending but, equally, such motivation can play a part or provide
just one element of the offending behaviour. ...
pullgees
2017-08-06 23:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".
It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
Ah well maybe you can clear up for me that it really does take more than mere perception by the victim for a hate crime to have occurred in law.
As I understand it, first there has to be a crime (i.e. a criminal
offence), and you need evidence to prove a crime has been
committed.
Classifying a crime as a hate crime then seems to be a
subsidiary or supplementary process.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate-crime/
What is hate crime?
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) have agreed a common definition
"...any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any
other person, to be motivated by a 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 a
hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or
perceived to be transgender."
Key words in the definition are "hostility" and "prejudice", words
which are used in their ordinary, everyday sense. The prosecution
does not therefore need to prove hatred as the motivating factor
behind an offence. Nor does the whole offence need to be
motivated by hostility. It can provide the sole reason for the
offending but, equally, such motivation can play a part or provide
just one element of the offending behaviour. ...
Nothing about evidence apart from the perceived motivation of hostility by the victim.
pensive hamster
2017-08-07 15:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".
It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
Ah well maybe you can clear up for me that it really does take more than mere perception by the victim for a hate crime to have occurred in law.
As I understand it, first there has to be a crime (i.e. a criminal
offence), and you need evidence to prove a crime has been
committed.
Classifying a crime as a hate crime then seems to be a
subsidiary or supplementary process.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate-crime/
What is hate crime?
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) have agreed a common definition
"...any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any
other person, to be motivated by a 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 a
hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or
perceived to be transgender."
Key words in the definition are "hostility" and "prejudice", words
which are used in their ordinary, everyday sense. The prosecution
does not therefore need to prove hatred as the motivating factor
behind an offence. Nor does the whole offence need to be
motivated by hostility. It can provide the sole reason for the
offending but, equally, such motivation can play a part or provide
just one element of the offending behaviour. ...
Nothing about evidence apart from the perceived motivation of hostility by the victim.
It is true that there is nothing about evidence in the short
extract above.

Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required
to prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
pullgees
2017-08-07 16:27:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".
It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
Ah well maybe you can clear up for me that it really does take more than mere perception by the victim for a hate crime to have occurred in law.
As I understand it, first there has to be a crime (i.e. a criminal
offence), and you need evidence to prove a crime has been
committed.
Classifying a crime as a hate crime then seems to be a
subsidiary or supplementary process.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate-crime/
What is hate crime?
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) have agreed a common definition
"...any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any
other person, to be motivated by a 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 a
hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or
perceived to be transgender."
Key words in the definition are "hostility" and "prejudice", words
which are used in their ordinary, everyday sense. The prosecution
does not therefore need to prove hatred as the motivating factor
behind an offence. Nor does the whole offence need to be
motivated by hostility. It can provide the sole reason for the
offending but, equally, such motivation can play a part or provide
just one element of the offending behaviour. ...
Nothing about evidence apart from the perceived motivation of hostility by the victim.
It is true that there is nothing about evidence in the short
extract above.
Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required
to prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
Nope perception of hostility is evidence enough.
pensive hamster
2017-08-07 16:30:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".
It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
Ah well maybe you can clear up for me that it really does take more than mere perception by the victim for a hate crime to have occurred in law.
As I understand it, first there has to be a crime (i.e. a criminal
offence), and you need evidence to prove a crime has been
committed.
Classifying a crime as a hate crime then seems to be a
subsidiary or supplementary process.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate-crime/
What is hate crime?
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) have agreed a common definition
"...any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any
other person, to be motivated by a 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 a
hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or
perceived to be transgender."
Key words in the definition are "hostility" and "prejudice", words
which are used in their ordinary, everyday sense. The prosecution
does not therefore need to prove hatred as the motivating factor
behind an offence. Nor does the whole offence need to be
motivated by hostility. It can provide the sole reason for the
offending but, equally, such motivation can play a part or provide
just one element of the offending behaviour. ...
Nothing about evidence apart from the perceived motivation of hostility by the victim.
It is true that there is nothing about evidence in the short
extract above.
Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required
to prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
Nope perception of hostility is evidence enough.
Have you any evidence of that ever having happened
in a court in the UK?
pullgees
2017-08-07 22:54:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
"For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person
.... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate
incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The
victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and
police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.
Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be
recorded as a hate crime or hate incident."
http://irishsavant.blogspot.in/2017/08/the-law-in-todays-britain.html
I assume that you posted this because it is so obviously the wrong position
to take?
tim
Yes.
It is not necessarily the wrong position to take "for recording
purposes".
It would be the wrong position to take for the purposes of
deciding guilt or innocence.
Ah well maybe you can clear up for me that it really does take more than mere perception by the victim for a hate crime to have occurred in law.
As I understand it, first there has to be a crime (i.e. a criminal
offence), and you need evidence to prove a crime has been
committed.
Classifying a crime as a hate crime then seems to be a
subsidiary or supplementary process.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate-crime/
What is hate crime?
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) have agreed a common definition
"...any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any
other person, to be motivated by a 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 a
hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or
perceived to be transgender."
Key words in the definition are "hostility" and "prejudice", words
which are used in their ordinary, everyday sense. The prosecution
does not therefore need to prove hatred as the motivating factor
behind an offence. Nor does the whole offence need to be
motivated by hostility. It can provide the sole reason for the
offending but, equally, such motivation can play a part or provide
just one element of the offending behaviour. ...
Nothing about evidence apart from the perceived motivation of hostility by the victim.
It is true that there is nothing about evidence in the short
extract above.
Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required
to prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
Nope perception of hostility is evidence enough.
Have you any evidence of that ever having happened
in a court in the UK?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As the Law stands, sooner or later some resentful over sensitive person is going to get the sympathy of a judge.
Vidcapper
2017-08-08 06:33:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required
to prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
Nope perception of hostility is evidence enough.
The definition of 'hate crime' is now far too broad - by the current
definition, just about everyone over 50 will have committed it at some
point, since they grew up in the era before PC.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
pullgees
2017-08-08 07:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required
to prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
Nope perception of hostility is evidence enough.
The definition of 'hate crime' is now far too broad - by the current
definition, just about everyone over 50 will have committed it at some
point, since they grew up in the era before PC.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The act is very weak as as far as a defendant is concerned, demonstrating hostility is not defined in the act. Rather insidious I would say.
Vidcapper
2017-08-08 14:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pullgees
Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required to
prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
Nope perception of hostility is evidence enough.
The definition of 'hate crime' is now far too broad - by the
current definition, just about everyone over 50 will have committed
it at some point, since they grew up in the era before PC.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The act is very weak as as far as a defendant is concerned,
demonstrating hostility is not defined in the act. Rather insidious I
would say.
Does it even account for possible provocation by the 'victim'?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
pullgees
2017-08-08 17:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pullgees
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pullgees
Does that lead you to conclude that evidence is not required to
prove that a criminal offence has been committed?
Nope perception of hostility is evidence enough.
The definition of 'hate crime' is now far too broad - by the
current definition, just about everyone over 50 will have committed
it at some point, since they grew up in the era before PC.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The act is very weak as as far as a defendant is concerned,
demonstrating hostility is not defined in the act. Rather insidious I
would say.
Does it even account for possible provocation by the 'victim'?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Quite so.

Loading...