Man who confronted Muslim woman re Brussels attack

[cgksheff]

And nothing in his tweets indicated that a crime had been committed. Any guessing that "she might have felt intimidated or threatened" is just that, outright speculation.

 

The police were apparently not in a position to charge him

 

"the Met Police was told it did not have the power to make the decision without consulting the Attorney-General or the CPS"

 

And without any real evidence of a crime, or even an incident taking place, they had no grounds to arrest him either.

 

There must be hundreds of tweets that do actually identify a criminal act taking place, but the police don't rock up and arrest the tweeter.

 

 

Although they were wrong to charge him, The Met's action did not require the incident to have occurred.

They were arresting him on the basis of his subsequent tweets being judged (wrongly) to be inciting racial hatred.

[999tigger]

And nothing in his tweets indicated that a crime had been committed. Any guessing that "she might have felt intimidated or threatened" is just that, outright speculation.

 

The police were apparently not in a position to charge him

 

"the Met Police was told it did not have the power to make the decision without consulting the Attorney-General or the CPS"

 

And without any real evidence of a crime, or even an incident taking place, they had no grounds to arrest him either.

 

There must be hundreds of tweets that do actually identify a criminal act taking place, but the police don't rock up and arrest the tweeter.

 

weve been through this before.

1. The police were perfectlly entitled to arrest him and question , thats what they do. Reasonable believe that an offence had been commited.

2. They were entitled to explore possible crimes he might have committed and whether the evidence matched the crime. s110 SOCP 2005 ss e and f dealing with investigation and disappearance.

3. they just missed the point of not contacting the cps before charging which they are required to do with IRH.

4. The decision wasnt about the pwoer of arrest it wa about the power to charge.

5. they would be under a duty to investigate if complaints are made by the public. we dont know why they did, but am glad they did.

 

Btw incitement to racial hatred and harassment are differnt crimes with different requirements.

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2016 at 00:00 ----------

 

Although they were wrong to charge him, The Met's action did not require the incident to have occurred.

They were arresting him on the basis of his subsequent tweets being judged (wrongly) to be inciting racial hatred.

 

Hes been told before but he cnat cope with the fact arresting and charging are different things and come from different bits of legislation.

[Cyclone]

You quoted me 999

 

"The police were apparently not in a position to charge him"

 

And then spent a paragraph explaining arrest. I know the difference thanks.

 

Since it was obvious that no crime had taken place there was no need for an arrest.

[Jonny5]

The people of Croydon must be thrilled to live in a crime free utopia where the police have nothing better to do than arrest people for thought crime.

[Waldo]

I've heard that comparison before but it makes no sense. Do you think Breivik did what he did because of his skin colour? Do people choose ethnicity like they choose religion? Can you reform ethnicity or give it up?

 

What happened in Brussels was driven by the teachings of Islam. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is irrelevant... without Islam it wouldn't have happened. Therefore all those who choose to propagate and perpetuate Islam are, by default, also perpetuating the extremist by-product. It is reasonable to challenge their decision and ask them what, if anything, they are going to do about the problems caused by their religion. I'll grant you though that it lacks any class to simply approach random people in the street to make the challenge.

 

It's an interesting point, but I'm not convinced that religion is a significant causal factor. If a muslim robbed a bank, would you say Islam is causing some people to rob banks?

 

Just because people claim to be doing 'x' in the name of religion, does not mean that religion is a significant causal factor.

[ANGELFIRE1]

She was probably wearing hijab. And?

 

And that would explain why he thought him/her to be a Muslim.

 

Angel1.

[Halibut]

And that would explain why he thought him/her to be a Muslim.

 

Angel1.

 

Err, yeah.

[Stoned]

No doubt you've all read the story of the London PR man, Matthew Doyle, who tweeted about his encounter with a Muslim woman he had never met. He said the woman gave a “mealy-mouthed” response after he demanded she “explain” the Brussels attacks. In fact the Muslim lady said, rightly in my opinion, the attacks were nothing to do with her. This, Doyle labelled as 'mealy mouthed'.

After he took to Twitter to complain of her response - he was met with some sarcasm after his Tweet went 'viral'. For example:

 

I confronted an Irish woman. I asked her to explain "Mrs Brown's Boys: Da movie". She said "nothing to do with me". A mealy mouthed reply.

 

Yes the police were heavy handed in having him arrested under the Public Order Act (which the CPS said the police didn't have the power to do). However Doyle, in theatrical manner, complained that he was:

"denied a shave, shower, food etc, I was stripped of any dignity to appear at Camberwell court without looking like a dishevelled hobo, which I am not". Oh boo -hoo

But Doyle did not help himself by taking to Twitter calling Muslims 'Towel heads'.

I agree with his complaint that the police were heavy handed, but Doyle hardly behaved with grace and dignity.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/26/charges-dropped-against-man-who-confronted-muslim-woman-croydon

It was a total waste of police time but this guy is a moron. He needs educating not arresting.

[999tigger]

You quoted me 999

 

"The police were apparently not in a position to charge him"

 

And then spent a paragraph explaining arrest. I know the difference thanks.

 

Since it was obvious that no crime had taken place there was no need for an arrest.

 

It wasnt obvious, becayse they were investigating what he did on twitter and not just what happened on the street. To do that they needed to interview him.

[RonJeremy]

It wasnt obvious, becayse they were investigating what he did on twitter and not just what happened on the street. To do that they needed to interview him.

Beats catching criminals anyway.