donkey Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 According to the guardian and the sun the police are treating it as a hate crime. But the Guardian called it an "alleged race hate attack". The central claim in the OP is that when the victims are white, the racial aspect is deliberately played down. This does not appear to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 11/00, Tariq Javed, 48, Bury, Manchester Murdered by a gang of White men who hijacked his cab. He was beaten, robbed and then run over by his own car. Mark Baxter and Jason Power were convicted of murder and robbery and jailed for life. Police said there was no evidence that the murder was racially motivated. http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/november/ak000008.html I doubt very much whether the facts will change your perception though.. You are just sticking links up from one site, a site that may or may not have a legitimate point to make. Maybe there are instances where not all attacks have been shown to be racist. But your site is set up for just that reason, to point out those cases as being wrong in there judgement and to make out ALL cases involving whites should be racist. If that site would be believed then white people don't stand a prayer. It would mean that other than it being just my opinion that white on black ticks the race box, then it would factually do so, 100% Now you know why there is no site that shows all instances where black people have attacked whites and they not be considered racist ? Have a guess. My stab at it would be because that site alone would then be classed as racist, just as the site that you quote from should be if they are legitimate cases and someone is suggesting the judgements were wrong just because they were not given the 'racial' status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 But the Guardian called it an "alleged race hate attack". The central claim in the OP is that because the victims are white, the racial aspect is being deliberately played down. This does not appear to be the case. I think the OP is saying the police are playing down because they call it a hate crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 An attack or an assault is just that, an attack or an assault, all this "racially motivated" and "hate crime" nonsense needs doing away with, its irrelivant what the motives are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1love Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You are just sticking links up from one site, a site that may or may not have a legitimate point to make. Maybe there are instances where not all attacks have been shown to be racist. But your site is set up for just that reason, to point out those cases as being wrong in there judgement and to make out ALL cases involving whites should be racist. If that site would be believed then white people don't stand a prayer. It would mean that other than it being just my opinion that white on black ticks the race box, then it would factually do so, 100% Now you know why there is no site that shows all instances where black people have attacked whites and they not be considered racist ? Have a guess. My stab at it would be because that site alone would then be classed as racist, just as the site that you quote from should be if they are legitimate cases and someone is suggesting the judgements were wrong just because they were not given the 'racial' status. you cant talk about sites, when your giving storys from 'the sun'. ha ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 But the Guardian called it an "alleged race hate attack". The central claim in the OP is that when the victims are white, the racial aspect is deliberately played down. This does not appear to be the case. In all fairness the Guardian does not say the Police are treating it as such, it appears to be their own conclusion that that be the case and is only mentioned in the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 An attack or an assault is just that, an attack or an assault, all this "racially motivated" and "hate crime" nonsense needs doing away with, its irrelivant what the motives are. It just needs some clarity. That's the point of the topic, what deems it one thing or the other , other than the colour of the offender ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think the OP is saying the police are playing down because they call it a hate crime. I think that's how the police describe all these kinds of attacks, at least at first. Hate crime is a catch all term, it includes racist attacks, as well as attacks on people for their perceived membership of other social groups (religious, sexual, racial, gender, disability, etc, etc). Once it's been investigated & gone to trial we'll know more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 In all fairness the Guardian does not say the Police are treating it as such, it appears to be their own conclusion that that be the case and is only mentioned in the title. So you are presuming that what was reported in the Sun was what the police said verbatim (even though it doesn't purport to be a quote from a police source) and that the Guardian made up the bit about 'race hate' without any reference to what the police told them? This whole thread is based on you massively jumping to a conclusion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 An attack or an assault is just that, an attack or an assault, all this "racially motivated" and "hate crime" nonsense needs doing away with, its irrelivant what the motives are. Not really, a white mugger attacking a black man for his money is a violent thief, just as a black mugger attacking a white man for their money would be a violent thief. If the attack was unprovoked on someone they didn’t know and didn't involve theft then it would clearly be racially motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.