fruitisbad Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Would it not make sense that the papers can't describe it as a race crime if it hasn't gone to court yet and been proven to be a race crime? Contempt of court anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 No story that I've seen has reported that the police have said this was a racially motivated attack. Newspapers often 'make stuff up' & publish opinion as fact. Particularly in headlines, nowadays they think about SEO, especially the Guardian & Mail. It's unsourced, it only appears in the headline & the rest of the article doesn't mention race once, the article just says the guy was arrested on suspicion of gbh. [edit] Just read the manchester evening news, but still they don't put anybody's name next to that claim, they don't say which police officer has said that. Sometimes newspapers make stuff up. Following normal police procedure whern dealing with the press, they are unlikely to have put foreward a definite motive for the attack without being in full possession of the facts. However, any reporter worth his salt would have asked was it racially motivated. The police obviously can't give a definitive answer yet, but they have obviously indicated that they are treating it as a 'hate crime' . This is standard police procedure. "Keeping an open mind but following a definite line of enquiry" and all that. There is no evidence whatsoever that the police have tried to conceal the fact that this was very possibly a racially motivated attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 It is a pity that your argument falls down in the last paragraph. Crimes against disabled people are harshly dealt with - is there much evidence of disabled people retaliating ?Disability is one thing that all corners of society get angry about when crime or injustice is done to them. Like the elderly its considered a no no because of their lack of ability to defend themselves, so society feels morally obliged to protect them. That's why its appalling some of the lack of care some people are getting in some hospitals and nursing homes at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I don't really know anything about this particular case beyond hearing a brief report on the radio & reading the thread. It sounds like the police are treating it as a possible racist attack (what other kind of hate would it be?) it's just that the Sun didn't pick up on that. On the subject of hate crime many people seem unaware of the reasoning behind treating them somewhat differently from other cases of assault, property damage and so forth so I thought I'd briefly go into that. The reasoning is that using this (alleged obviously) case as an example; by attacking an individual white person just because they're white the Asian gang aren't just victimising him but they're also attempting to intimidate and thus victimise all white people. Specifically the white people in that general area who may end up being scared to walk the streets and so forth for fear of racial attack. Hate crimes also create the risk of retaliatory hate crime from members of the victimised group, it's that risk and the attempt to intimidate and control the group that the individual victim belongs to that arguably justifies punishing hate crime with greater severity. Hallelujah! Thank you for the reasoned post. I'd also add that sometimes the media may describe an incident in their own words. The Sun didn't say the attack was racially motivated, but as you have pointed out the police seem to think it was. There's also a bit here about it being a race-hate-crime attack: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1478292_video-hyde-gang-victim-17-year-old-daniel-stringer-prince-relives-horror-of-race-hate-crime-attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It is a pity that your argument falls down in the last paragraph. Crimes against disabled people are harshly dealt with - is there much evidence of disabled people retaliating ? "create the risk of retaliatory hate crime from members of the victimised group" If you're going to try and nitpick at least go to the trouble of carefully reading what people say. Obviously this 'risk' varies depending upon the size and nature of the victimised group. The risk is very high for example with sectarian hate crime in Northern Ireland, racial hate crime when there's a sizeable population of the two groups in involved, particularly if there's a tendency to informal segregation. The risk is obviously much lower for attacks upon groups who tend to have close relationships with members of the group that the individuals who attacked them belong to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadogo Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 "create the risk of retaliatory hate crime from members of the victimised group" If you're going to try and nitpick at least go to the trouble of carefully reading what people say. Obviously this 'risk' varies depending upon the size and nature of the victimised group. The risk is very high for example with sectarian hate crime in Northern Ireland, racial hate crime when there's a sizeable population of the two groups in involved, particularly if there's a tendency to informal segregation. The risk is obviously much lower for attacks upon groups who tend to have close relationships with members of the group that the individuals who attacked them belong to.[/QUOTE] Another sweeping generalisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadogo Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 "create the risk of retaliatory hate crime from members of the victimised group" If you're going to try and nitpick at least go to the trouble of carefully reading what people say. Obviously this 'risk' varies depending upon the size and nature of the victimised group. The risk is very high for example with sectarian hate crime in Northern Ireland, racial hate crime when there's a sizeable population of the two groups in involved, particularly if there's a tendency to informal segregation. The risk is obviously much lower for attacks upon groups who tend to have close relationships with members of the group that the individuals who attacked them belong to. I never said that it was a quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Because there is no suggestion race played a part. There doesn't need to be. There only needs to be a perception within the community that a hate crime has been committed, for it to be treated as a hate crime by Manchester police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 There doesn't need to be. There only needs to be a perception within the community that a hate crime has been committed, for it to be treated as a hate crime by Manchester police. And there hasn't been any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Hallelujah! Thank you for the reasoned post. I'd also add that sometimes the media may describe an incident in their own words. The Sun didn't say the attack was racially motivated, but as you have pointed out the police seem to think it was. There's also a bit here about it being a race-hate-crime attack: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1478292_video-hyde-gang-victim-17-year-old-daniel-stringer-prince-relives-horror-of-race-hate-crime-attack You clearly haven't read the other links from the BBC and several other papers that report the police as saying they are treating it as a hate crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.