Cycleracer Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Ok fair point B2B but my debate has been from the start that this could have been school rivalry and then told I know the real reason for this girl being attacked. Then suddenly i'm talking a load of rubbish. All i'm saying is until the Police come out with the facts then the reason for the attack is not confirmed. The young girl was attacked by Asian youths, that does not make it a racial attack and thats the point i wanted to put across, then just because the authur of this thread disagreed he made it a racial thread instead of the actuall debate about hhis daughters welfare which was the important part of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Cycleracer without reading back through the thread i don't think my comments were aimed at you I totally agree with what you just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houdi Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 just because the authur of this thread disagreed he made it a racial thread instead of the actuall debate about hhis daughters welfare which was the important part of this thread. [/b] Personally, I think this thread should now be removed (not that any one will listen) as the author is no longer on the Forum and cannot defend his opinions or reply to any of these posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 As far as I know billyblade is still a fully registered user and he hasn't contacted me to the contrary.... As for the purpose of his post being a wide-up : yes I agree fully that's what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Back2Basics, you're nearly right about the definition of a race hate crime. I believe it is classed as a race hate crime if it is "perceived to be racist by the victim or by any other person'". This means that the police can decide to class it as a race hate crime even if the victim doesn't report it as such. My point remains - IMO, we are very quick to jump to the 'racist conclusion' when it is a white on black crime and not the other way around. I think this happens because people in power are desperate to be seen to be doing and saying the right things because any hint of a racist slur could ruin their career. This is an observation about our (ruling) society in general - not about a particular race(s). I don't know whether the attack we are discussed here was racist or not. I simply put forward the opinion that had the racial roles been reversed then I think it would have been investigated by the police as a racist crime. I suggest that this sort of discrepancy is counter-productive in the fight against racism and therefore question what the point is in labelling certain crimes in this way. B2B, you say that in the "real world" an attack by someone from one race on another is not automatically classed as racist - but look at the case you linked to. The automatic assumption of the police was to classify and prosecute the case as racially motivated. This is exactly my point. People in authority seem to feel a pressure to be seen to be politically correct and do not judge each case on its merits. Personally, I'm not sure of the relevance of classifying cases as racially motivated. Is a mindless, unproved attack on someone more serious if the motive was racial than if it was because the other person supported a different football team or went to a different school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Some people may get in a fight and racially abusive comments could be thrown each others way if the opposing sides were of different ethnic origin. This doesn't mean they have a deep seated racial hatred towards an entire race of people - its just a term to insult the person, as would pointing out if they are fat, short, tall, thick, ugly, etc. In a case of a fight where racist terms may be exchanged, it should not constitute a racially motivated attack, because the racist term was used as an insult in the heat of the moment and the fight was not started for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattymattmat Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 I went to meadowhead and we used to have scraps with newfield. But i must say that now you cant walk lowedges and you need to keep an eye over your shoulder. What about the ins and outs of this scuffle between the kids? How does anyone know that i wasnt 6 of one and half a dozen of the other??? People are too keen to jump on the Chubby Brown racist bandwagon these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cycleracer Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Originally posted by t020 Some people may get in a fight and racially abusive comments could be thrown each others way if the opposing sides were of different ethnic origin. This doesn't mean they have a deep seated racial hatred towards an entire race of people - its just a term to insult the person, as would pointing out if they are fat, short, tall, thick, ugly, etc. In a case of a fight where racist terms may be exchanged, it should not constitute a racially motivated attack, because the racist term was used as an insult in the heat of the moment and the fight was not started for that reason. Absolutely, I fully agree but what Billyblade did say and i fully support was that if the tables were turned white on black it would not be seen as a racial attack which brings Zammo's last posting a factual statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Zamo yes i know it's anybody i think i even put that in the post, if i didn't well sorry. But the police MUST look in to ANY crime where race was mentioned by anybody. That is why in the link they looked in to it, it wasn't an assumption it was a procedure that they have to follow. The reason we have these procedures is to stop the racist elements in the police force from being able to use their power to brush over it. Your very wrong i am sorry, they do not feel any pressure (political or otherwise) we have rules and regulation in place to stop that from happening. And that is why they are in place. Zamo start backing up your claims, you need to start taking some responsibility for the inaccuracies in your post. Your opinions are very dangerous because you can put them across eloquently. This is not a subject for opinions or pub talk. I hope Sheffieldforum have the responsibility to make sure that people can not get away with unsubstantiated claims that clearly could leave people with the wrong information on a subject where it does matter to have the right info. What you appear tyo be saying is that if a white person said reported to the police that he thought it was racially motivated, that the police would not give that claim as much weight and just not look in to it. That's total clap trap. Zamo if i post a link showing you the law, people won't read it. They will come to their own conclusion, based on there existing prejudices. That is why you must make sure your posts are accurate, because people may take you posts as fact. So there is responsibility for people who are taking part in reasoned debate (as you do). This is how these weird justification we read every day here are spread. Word of mouth, people read something, think oh yeah that backs up my view point and use it. Your post isn't accurate and you cannot back it up. It's an opinion on a subject where there are clearly defined rules for what must happen. Nobody has a choice, there must be an investigation as the system works now. And that is perfectly illustrated by Cycelracer, one minute he says one thing, then he reads you post and suddenly it's fact. When you didn't even post anything that was fact (but at least you made it clear it was IMO). Cycle racer you just going between two argument! Your opinion seems to change with ever post! Explain to us how it makes it factual? They are OBLIGED to look in to EVERY claim, even if it's a white person making that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cycleracer Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 Maybe in theory, but in reality the police don't give a toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.