Notts police to record harassment as a misogynistic hate crime

[grimbletart]

//www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398

Are they the first to do so I wonder?

[cadnowyllt]

I think they'll just abolish men altogether before long at this rate

Large number of males aren't required -here's what one species of ant does

[LumpySpacedPrincess]

Gosh yes, if men are not allowed to harass and abuse women then it's game over for them.

Or they could just stop and become decent human beings.

[picolinate]

I think they'll just abolish men altogether before long at this rate

Fingers crossed!

[Xenophile]

Born, are you seriously saying that if men can't harass women on the street, they may as well not exist? And I thought it was supposed to be feminists who hate men.

[LilacSpunkMonkey]

How on earth do you abolish men?

What a silly thing to say.

[WellErrr]

Can you clarify what you mean there born?

[Borninwrongdecade]

I think they'll just abolish men altogether before long at this rate.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

Can you explain why sex isn't included?

No. I'm not a criminal lawyer. The distinctions throw up various anomalies. This has been discussed at length before on here. Belgium has the widest category and under Belgium law pickling on some one simply because they are old or ugly or stupid or poor or posh or a bit weird is covered along with the other categories.

Sex is a protected characteristic so far as discrimination for employment, provision of goods and services.


[Brandnewiggi]

As sex is a protected characteristic I still don't see why it wasn't included as a hate crime motive.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

A hate crime is basically one where the person being attacked is different from the attacker in some way, usually , although not always , in a way which is involuntary and that difference is the motivation or prime motivation for the attack. Not all differences are protected. Not all crimes where the parties are different are hate crimes.

Example 1. A fully able ,white, heterosexual Christian man and a black , disabled lesbian , Muslim, single mother live on the same common stair. He has frequent late and noisy parties- she has cats who pee on the stairs and children who drop litter. They can't stand the sight of each other. If they come to blows it is not a hate crime unless he uses insulting words about her race, religion or disability or indeed she tells him he's a dirty kaffir.

Example 2 A Glasgow Rangers supporter beats up a Glasgow Celtic supporter or vice versa. That is likely to be a hate crime because of the sectarian Protestant / Catholic rivalry. An Aberdeen supporter beats up a St Johnston supporter or vice versa - that is unlikely to be a hate crime as there is no sectarian rivalry between those teams.

Example 3 the 2 teenage girls who were convicted earlier this year of the brutal murder of a vulnerable alcoholic older woman after torturing her for hours did not commit a hate crime. Being a bit odd and being seen as a bit weird is not a protected characteristic.

Example 3 the people who bullied Fiona Pilkington to the point she killed her daughter and committed suicide did not commit a hate crime although the ones bullying her disabled daughter did.

Example 4 anyone regardless of their race, religion or sex attacking a white, Jewish middle class, able bodied man in the UK even a member of the House of Lords , because he is Jewish commits a hate crime.

Example 5 anyone regardless of their race, religion or sex beating up a Goth just for looking after bit funny is not committing a hate crime. Looking at bit odd and being seen as a bit weird is not a protected characteristic.

[cadnowyllt]

I think the reason why racially and religious aggravated offences were put on the statute book was as a result of the public concern following the Stephen Lawrence murder.

There was at the time some discussion as to why they were needed at all - it was asked why courts could not simply apply this as another 'aggravating' factor when carrying out its sentencing exercise. Others argued that to substantial increase sentences then new offences needed to be created - see Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In the end, I suppose it was politically expedient to create the new offences.

[scallopsrgreat]

The other thing about the filming is that harassing women on the street has always been a crime. It's just now going to be classified as a hate crime. So if the possibility of being filmed hasn't put men off yet not sure why calling it a hate crime would make a difference. I suppose that extra stigma may help or reduce the problem?

[SpeakNoWords]

This already happens with road rage type incidents - many cyclists wear bodycams that can capture footage of abuse aimed at them. Is that used as evidence? It seems to be the same as cctv footage from shops/homes that can be used in the case of burglaries etc. Perhaps more women should wear bodycams when going about their daily routines?

[scallopsrgreat]

I'd like to think that Grimarse, really I would. But given that men get away with rapes that are filmed, I'm thinking not. Also this stuff often happens so swiftly and unexpectedly it would be difficult. It would only be cases that escalate I suspect.

Having said that, a woman did manage to film the street harassment she received in the US (although if I remember rightly it was problematic racially).

[Grimarse]

Not sure what the answer to your question is Grimarse. Presumably it would be subject to whatever laws surround filming members of the public are, as usual. Is there a point to the question?

Point being that everyone has a phone camera these days. If such evidence is admissible, perhaps some of the morons will consider this and not bother in the first place. Knowing that they can be filmed shouting, and then a number plate captured may deter some. I asked because I don't know whether such filming is admissible as evidence in court.

[Grimarse]

I think some previous points were about balance within the law, and not excluding any group. For example, hate crimes against religious beliefs might impinge far more heavily on some religions than others, but that doesn't mean that the law should not be applicable for everyone. The ratio of religious hate crimes might be split 95 - 5 per cent for Muslims vs Christians, for example. Should therefore the law not be applicable to Christian persecution?

In the same way, a law of hate crimes against either sex might still capture 99 per cent of crimes being committed against women. The law still works, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?

[BerriesandLeaves]

Good news.The first reply when the BBC posted this on their fb page says it all really. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1717668058485347&id=1392506827668140

[Brandnewiggi]

Does anyone know the reason why, when hate crime legislation was extended to include the groups who are now covered by it, women/sex was not included? I feel I'm missing something here but I just don't understand why.

[scallopsrgreat]

Yeah, I always have my phone ready for white van man to shout abuse.

Not sure what the answer to your question is Grimarse. Presumably it would be subject to whatever laws surround filming members of the public are, as usual. Is there a point to the question?