Data on violence against trans people & women

just that it’s not a public order offence or a hate crime.

It's not a public order offence, but it can be a hate crime. Any crime can be a "hate crime" as per definition I and Pony posted below:

Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’

And, just to reiterate, we know what you are doing, @ReleasetheCrackHen but we also know that these type of thread draw many lurkers.

You are helping us to demonstrate the weakness of your arguments to them. So carry on.

If you are still here , OP, (and I wouldn’t blame you if you had left some time ago,) I would show your P the footage of the Starbucks incident , the suffragette statue harassment and maybe some of the Twitter footage of the beret wearing ally of the the Brighton MP

Then I would ask him to provide one single similar instance of threats against TW or TRA. I’m sure that if they exist , they will be heavily promoted and easy to find.

misgendering or asking people to leave single sex spaces as in YMCA or Zara doesn’t count.

Again, can you show some evidence to back up the claim you made?

Hate crimes exist because those demographics have been shown to have a higher rate of being victims of violent crime than the average person. A demographic is not eligible to be covered under hate crime legislation unless this is the case.

You would know, being a grandmaster at it.

She is confusing the categories of hate crime victim with the categories of hate crime.

From the CPS

The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:

• Race
• Religion
• Disability
• Sexual orientation
• Transgender identity

• demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

Or

• been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

You can't because it isn't true. So all you can do is distract.

It's a very familiar pattern.

That’s not a definition of a hate crime. Now look who is trying to distract.

It is actually true, unlike most of what you have posted. You must be feeling pretty angry at me for disproving most if what you have claimed.

Perhaps you can’t find anything to disprove it, so are going down the pretend it’s not true path?

Already did. Read the report.

OK, show us some evidence to back up this claim that you made:

Hate crimes exist because those demographics have been shown to have a higher rate of being victims of violent crime than the average person. A demographic is not eligible to be covered under hate crime legislation unless this is the case.

You can't because it isn't true. So all you can do is distract.

Hate crimes are not all crimes against a set demographic, it is only five specific types of crimes.

That's not what the ONS says, though, so can you post your source that asserts there are only five specific types of crimes?

Obviously, I was pointing to the hate crime reports which includes violent crime to establish that transgender people are at higher risk of violent crime than the average person.

You seem to lack focus on the actual thread topic. Just because the hate crime report covers violent AND nonviolent crimes, doesn’t mean you can ignore that it collects data and evidence on violence against transpeople.

You going off on a tangent about non violent and non hate crimes is pointless.

I did no such thing. Look in the mirror.

Because hate crime include non-violent crime.

You really are playing pigeon chess now.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a crime, just that it’s not a public order offence or a hate crime. Hate crimes are not all crimes against a set demographic, it is only five specific types of crimes.

You are making up a definition of hate crime that has no basis in fact and cherry-picking stats to justify it.

But, as your definition is not correct, you can quote as many figures as you want, but it still won't make it true.

Personal crime covers all crime against an individual, violent or nonviolent. Why would you even use this in a discussion about violence?

Oh look - it's about hurty tweets.

My astonished face is unchanged from earlier.

What? WTF has witness intimidation got to do with whether social media communications can constitute a hate crime.

Let's read on, in the CPS guidance about examples of criminal offences committed via social media, :

In R (on the application of Alison Chabloz) v Crown Prosecution Service [2020] 1 Cr. App. R. 17, the defendant (who had an internet blog) posted hyperlinks to YouTube where she had uploaded videos of herself singing grossly offensive anti-Semitic songs. Her convictions for offences under s.127(1)(a) and (1)(b) were upheld by the Court of Appeal, which noted - "The purpose of s.127(1) was to prohibit the use of a public electronic communications network to contravene basic standards of public decency. The offence did not depend on the message being received, but was complete when it was sent, DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40 followed. The potential recipients of a message posted on the internet were members of the public. It was immaterial that an accused might have intended only that a message should be read by a limited class of people."

And
(f) Persistently using a public communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another (s.127(2)(c) CA 2003)Under s.127(2)(c) CA 2003, a person may be guilty of an offence by persistently making use of a public communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person.
In the case of Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin), the Divisional Court considered the scope of the offence under s.127(2(c) CA 2003. In Scottow, the defendant posted a total of 16 messages on Twitter and Mumsnet during 2018-2019 about the complainant, a transgender woman who had a public profile as an activist and advocate on transgender rights. The issue was whether the defendant had 'persistently' sent messages with the required purpose.
Oh look - it's about hurty tweets.

*Crimes against Asian people not "Asian crimes"

As an aside, I think this is an awful definition.

Some years ago we had terrible neighbours - they rowed in the middle of the night, woke up all the other neighbours. People phoned the police, resulting in retaliation (shit on our doorstep etc.). One time when the police came round to talk to us, they pointed out that our awful neighbour was Asian, and said, "So that's a part of it, then?" WTF. So if this idiotic policeman, or our horrible neighbour, had wished to record this dispute as a hate crime on our part, they could have done so!

So Hen thinks women shouldn’t be covered by hate crime law, even though there is an epidemic of VAWG - let’s face it, if misogyny was a hate crime, the whole world would come to a stop cos there wouldn’t be time for anything else

Homicide is the worst sort of violence.

But the pattern can be different, as it is here with Asian crimes, as @MissLucyEyelesbarrow pointed out to you, and I pointed out to you regarding trans murders.

I didn't post Karen Ingala Smith, mate. I merely asked why you had an issue with it. Women on FWR are different people, not one hive mind blob of "woman whose views you don't like".

Homicide is the worst sort of violence. That is sufficient to be included in hate crime legislation as a vulnerable demographic.