Homophobic attack in Surbiton on Saturday night...

[StevoD]

i still stand by it, people attitude of you dont know the full circumstances you cannot judge has to on all occasions not when it allows you to be the bigger man on a raciest claim

Edited November 4, 2014 by StevoD

[WhackyWill]

i still stand by it, people attitude of you dont know the full circumstances you cannot judge has to on all occasions not when it allows you to be the bigger man on a raciest claim

 

Who knows StevO who was the bigger man .. maybe that was the problem. :scare:

[sipar69]

What annoys me, is how the poppy thread everyone said you cant accuse it being muslim because it was poppys related, but we can accuse a guy of homophobic attacks because apparently a homophobic phrase was used

 

Your either on the soap box or off it, not when you want to be

 

But it seem as soon as a minority a different race was involved everyone jumped on the PC wagon as soon It was sexuality based it turned to a bit of a joke seems rather hypocritical (might be the wrong word)

 

i might be confusing with what im saying but hope the right message gets across also this isnt pointed at anyone directly

 

 

Also reading that if the two blokes that got beaten where gay and the two attackers where in pink tutus cant be hard to see how this kicked off personally i dont think its a homophobia attack more a case of them getting the **** taken out of could have been the two straightest people in the word if what i imagine the homosexual guys said had been said by a straight person i imagine the reaction would have been the same, and therefors sexuality had nothing to do with it same was the race of the poppy seller attack may have had nothing to do with it

 

Stevo. Trust me when I tell you this because I work in justice system:

 

Any attack which is preceded by homophobic, religious, racist abuse etc is very likely to be classified as a hate crime. If I called you a 'gay bleep' and then assaulted you, the prosecuting authorities would take that to mean that my attack was at least partly motivated by homophobia. And that is, of course, a logical conclusion to draw. Most importantly, if the case went to court the homophobic abuse would very probably be taken into account as an aggravating factor. This isn't my opinion - it's how the law works.

 

And yes, to save you typing the question: an attack against a white person can be considered to be racially motivated, and the racist element would be very likely to be an aggravating factor taken into account by the court. There are a substantial number of racially motivated attacks against white people every year in this country.

Edited November 5, 2014 by sipar69

[Rock_Steady]

Threw a gang sign? That's hilarious.

[WhackyWill]

Threw a gang sign? That's hilarious.

 

:lol:

[StevoD]

What annoys me, is how the poppy thread everyone said you cant accuse it being muslim because it was poppys related, but we can accuse a guy of homophobic attacks because apparently a homophobic phrase was used

 

Your either on the soap box or off it, not when you want to be

 

But it seem as soon as a minority a different race was involved everyone jumped on the PC wagon as soon It was sexuality based it turned to a bit of a joke seems rather hypocritical (might be the wrong word)

 

i might be confusing with what im saying but hope the right message gets across also this isnt pointed at anyone directly

 

 

Also reading that if the two blokes that got beaten where gay and the two attackers where in pink tutus cant be hard to see how this kicked off personally i dont think its a homophobia attack more a case of them getting the **** taken out of could have been the two straightest people in the word if what i imagine the homosexual guys said had been said by a straight person i imagine the reaction would have been the same, and therefors sexuality had nothing to do with it same was the race of the poppy seller attack may have had nothing to do with it

 

Stevo. Trust me when I tell you this because I work in justice system:

 

Any attack which is preceded by homophobic, religious, racist abuse etc is very likely to be classified as a hate crime. If I called you a 'gay bleep' and then assaulted you, the prosecuting authorities would take that to mean that my attack was at least partly motivated by homophobia. And that is, of course, a logical conclusion to draw. Most importantly, if the case went to court the homophobic abuse would very probably be taken into account as an aggravating factor. This isn't my opinion - it's how the law works.

 

And yes, to save you typing the question: an attack against a white person can be considered to be racially motivated, and the racist element would be very likely to be an aggravating factor taken into account by the court. There are a substantial number of racially motivated attacks against white people every year in this country.

 

your sort of missing the point im making

[ZEUS]

Threw a gang sign? That's hilarious.

I don't even know what that means, I must be getting old ?!

[KyleR]

I smell a rat in this story. The 2 assaulted parties are leaving out valuable details.

[Fodder]

I think Stevo is suggesting there are double standards.

 

I kind of understand what you mean but as I said earlier in the thread what is being reported in the poppy case makes no mention of any kind of discriminatory language or gestures being used whereas this incident does.

 

As I also said my issue with the other thread was down to the OP's suggestion that the attacker and his family should be deported, we don't know the background of him or his family his family aren't as far as we are aware implicated at all. So if you are trying to get at me having double standards you are way off the mark.

 

You know I think we would get along debating stuff over a pint just written word on a forum doesn't get your meaning over fully

[Rock_Steady]

Rock_Steady, on 05 November 2014 - 08:31, said:

 

 

Threw a gang sign? That's hilarious.

 

ZEUS

 

I don't even know what that means, I must be getting old ?!

 

throw up a gang sign: A gesture made with your hand/s to identify your gang/crew/clique to "represent"

 

Example, these 2 guys roll up like a pair of sleeves"n"like "yo!! Oh no you didn't yo! you can't be wearin no pink tutu on my corner yo"

 

 

And this guy was like " Ay Yo! So wazzup bizaches, who you be?? I be flippin the script wid this tutu yo, word is bond yo

 

 

But then these guys rock up and they're like " Ay YO!!! All Y'all be bitches yo, Dis be our corner Yo, Now bakdafucup B4 we make da grand openin of ya chest yo!

• 
   
  

Edited November 5, 2014 by Rock_Steady

[glrnet]

Well, that's cleared that up nicely then ^

[Rock_Steady]

[WhackyWill]

That's all American Gang sh1T, I can just see it now..

 

Two Gays in Tutus responding to a Blood or Crips gang sign in Surbiton ..!! :lol:

[Rock_Steady]

I know just doesn't fit does it

[ZEUS]

Well, that's cleared that up nicely then ^

What Graham said

[StevoD]

Yea fodder is wasn't directly at you pal but a kind of collective note you can see who views this and there's people who made uproar in the other thread but not here

 

And there is about as much evidence and details to this story as the other

 

Just seemed odd to get on a soap box for a racist thing and not for a sexuality thing

[Fodder]

Last note, there is no evidence (at this point) that the poppy attack was a hate crime. There is in this one.

 

Peoples views on the poppy incident made it a hate crime and it is easy to jump to that conclusion at times even with zero evidence. Whichever way that is a particularly horrible attack regardless of the who the victim was.

 

Several posters have stated that for this one we are only getting one side of the story and that's very important however as the "attackers" ran off when passers by intervened you can only make one conclusion due to information presented to them.

 

The press have a lot to answer for in the way crime is reported but they aren't stupid, a single word can change the whole story from a page 8 story into a front page one.

 

 

[glrnet]

Yea fodder is wasn't directly at you pal but a kind of collective note you can see who views this and there's people who made uproar in the other thread but not here

 

And there is about as much evidence and details to this story as the other

 

Just seemed odd to get on a soap box for a racist thing and not for a sexuality thing

Not everyone reads EVERY thread Steve.

[sipar69]

The 'Baby P' case is a good example of how the press sometimes behave. Saw a very good documentary about it a week or so back. Some of the papers (in particular the Sun) made up blatant lies and twisted the facts to suit the agenda of finding a scapegoat in Haringay Social Services. Now that doesn't mean Social Services were blameless - they got a lot of things wrong - but the end result is that everyone on this forum who pays tax is contributing to a massive payout to the former head of that organisation for wrongful dismissal, which according to her lawyers was "fuelled by a media witch-hunt".

Edited November 6, 2014 by sipar69

[Ekona]

So to take another tack then, should we consider removing any kind of aggravating side to any crime, and just judge it on the actual act itself?

 

Burning someone in the face. Beating the crap out of someone. Killing your partner. Should it matter that it was because you don't like one religion, one sexuality, or that he was knobbing some bird behind your back?

 

A crime is a crime. Sticks and stones. Ultimately, should it really matter?

[spursmaddave]

The 'Baby P' case is a good example of how the press sometimes behave. Saw a very good documentary about it a week or so back. Some of the papers (in particular the Sun) made up blatant lies and twisted the facts to suit the agenda of finding a scapegoat in Haringay Social Services. Now that doesn't mean Social Services were blameless - they got a lot of things wrong - but the end result is that everyone on this forum who pays tax is contributing to a massive payout to the former head of that organisation for wrongful dismissal, which according to her lawyers was "fuelled by a media witch-hunt".

 

There is also a huge amount that the press were not allowed to report at the time, but yes the press get to make their take on things although it is supposed to be unbiased...

[sipar69]

So to take another tack then, should we consider removing any kind of aggravating side to any crime, and just judge it on the actual act itself?

 

Burning someone in the face. Beating the crap out of someone. Killing your partner. Should it matter that it was because you don't like one religion, one sexuality, or that he was knobbing some bird behind your back?

 

A crime is a crime. Sticks and stones. Ultimately, should it really matter?

 

I suppose the principle is that, in effect, it's like a double whammy - a crime motivated by something that society considers to be wrong (and in many cases is illegal) in its own right. Sort of two crimes in one.

 

So to take another tack then, should we consider removing any kind of aggravating side to any crime, and just judge it on the actual act itself?

 

Burning someone in the face. Beating the crap out of someone. Killing your partner. Should it matter that it was because you don't like one religion, one sexuality, or that he was knobbing some bird behind your back?

 

A crime is a crime. Sticks and stones. Ultimately, should it really matter?

 

I suppose the principle is that, in effect, it's like a double whammy - a crime motivated by something that society considers to be wrong (and in many cases is illegal) in its own right. Sort of two crimes in one.

 

The thing I find most bizarre in our system is crime against property, fraud etc often attract much stiffer sentences than crimes of serious violence.

Edited November 6, 2014 by sipar69

[ChrisS]

Yea fodder is wasn't directly at you pal but a kind of collective note you can see who views this and there's people who made uproar in the other thread but not here

 

And there is about as much evidence and details to this story as the other

 

Just seemed odd to get on a soap box for a racist thing and not for a sexuality thing

 

This would appear to be a post designed to goad other members.

If it was, please stop as we do not run this forum that way.

If it was not then please accept my apologises.

 

All members can read or not read threads. All members can comment or not comment on threads.

They do not have to conform to what some people might want or not want them to do.

[mouthwash]

Poor Stevo, just misunderstood in his time. 100 years from now people will be hailing him as the most forward thinking person of the 21st century.

[Ekona]

I didn't see anything wrong with what Stevo said (spelling and punctuation aside ), which is odd for me...

 

I can see his point. Why do people get so incredibly offended when it comes to racist abuse, yet sexual abuse is fair game?

 

 

People on this board very often use the term 'gay' to describe something tacky, or naff, or crap. Or, they'll pretend to be gay in an attempt at a veiled insult to others. I know I'm definitely guilty of both here in the past. If you're gay, and there has to be some gay members on this board at the very least, then I wonder if you find that uncomfortable at all? I'm not sure I would as it takes a lot to get under my skin.

 

To turn it around, if we then went down the race-related insults route, if someone calls me a honky white trash *****, I'll get much more upset about the ***** part than the race bit. But then I'm white, I'm the majority and my race has never really been persecuted, so I'd be more likely to just shrug it off.

 

Why can we call someone an old b*stard quite happily, but not a black b*stard? One is ageist, one is racist, so both discriminatory; However, only one will get you hauled up before the courts. Discrimination, and how we feel about certain types, is a very tricky subject indeed.