85yo man investigated for a "non-crime hate incident"

Mrs OBumble

timmyntc wrote: »

The UK police should be more concerned with stopping knife crime and grooming gangs than this crap


In fairness is this letter even anti-PC? There's "PC gone mad" and then theres this.

No -it's pro PC.

He's saying that if pregnant people want to have their own foetus aborted because they learn it has a disability, that's OK and that she is disgusting for judging them.

Overheal

lawred2 wrote: »

that's entirely different

everyone gets junk mail

not remotely equivalent

It is remotely equivalent of course. Both involve a lookup of a persons address and a letter sent. Not entirely different at all. Remote equivalence plainly demonstrable.

Help explain how those examples aren’t a crime and how this man’s letter is. I’m going to presume that @Shield will happily cite any statute of it applies, which I have my sincere doubts that any do

Ronaldinho

Welcome to the 2020s

All bad/wrong think must be shut down.

F freedom of speech / open debate / respectfulness for alternative viewpoints.

AdrianBalboa

timmyntc wrote: »

Fan mail to musicians and actors is something thats happened for decades.

In some cases its harrassment - dependent on content. But this letter is neither harrassment or hate crime. Its just a man who cordially disagrees with someone.

It’s not cordial, he sent her a letter to her home. Just because he didn’t use abusive language doesn’t mean what he did was polite.

paw patrol

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

He should have the book thrown at him to be honest.

lawred2 wrote: »

why is he writing to her directly? unsolicited?

what's wrong with writing to somebody unsolicited ? You can post a letter to anybody and rightly so. Like how dare he?
I don't know how some of you leave your house each day with such precious attitudes.:rolleyes:

Fandymo

lawred2 wrote: »

why is he writing to her directly? unsolicited?

The humanity. Sending a piece of paper with some ink on it. He probably phones people off a private number too.

Jesus wept. Is society really this far gone??

lawred2

timmyntc wrote: »

Fan mail to musicians and actors is something thats happened for decades.

In some cases its harrassment - dependent on content. But this letter is neither harrassment or hate crime. Its just a man who cordially disagrees with someone.

I actually agree wholly with the content. And the manner is genteel. He'd actually have found a very receptive audience for such a position were it printed in that same newspaper.

I just don't think he should be sending it to anyone's home.

Zilch will come of this.

crossman47

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

The Golden Pages were for businesses.

It has never been au fait to send people replies to their homes in riposte over letters to the paper, not even back in your day, grandpa.

And all this “he’s an old man” rubbish doesn’t hold any water. If he’s savvy enough to find out where she lives online, he’s big enough to suffer the punishment for hassling her.

He didn't "hassle" her. He sent a polite letter.

Overheal

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It’s not cordial, he sent her a letter to her home. Just because he didn’t use abusive language doesn’t mean what he did was polite.

She got mail from a reader and we’re to take that as offensive in and of itself?

I suspect there are stark generational divides present in attitudes here? I’m an 80s kid myself I didn’t grow up with a Nokia in my hand, I bicycled alone for miles and hours in suburb and urban areas alike, I played outside, To Catch A Predator hadn’t put the fear of god into parents yet, Swatting wasn’t practiced and neither was doxing - people had their home addresses in the white pages, businesses in the yellow pages, etc. and I was told that if you wanted to contact someone there was no more formal or polite way than a handwritten letter. And this guy has decades on me in terms of sensibilities about what is considered impolite.

GreeBo

joseywhales wrote: »

What a well written letter. Perfectly balanced and he clearly articulates his point without hysteria except for the "disgracefully" adjective which might have been avoided. How is this defined as a hate incident?

This +1.
An excellent letter.

AdrianBalboa

paw patrol wrote: »

what's wrong with writing to somebody unsolicited ? You can post a letter to anybody and rightly so. Like how dare he?
I don't know how some of you leave your house each day with such precious attitudes.:rolleyes:

It’s wrong because he doesn’t know her, and she didn’t engage with him in anyway. She sent a letter to a newspaper and instead of sending one to the newspaper himself he found out where she lived and sent her a letter to her home.

Incidentally there is nothing in his letter indicating that he is a “harmless” old man, for all she knew he could have been some mental-case who was itching to take this confrontation a step further.

People are bleating about freedom of speech etc in this thread but the reality is if anyone here got a letter like that out of the blue they would be at the very least concerned.

AdrianBalboa

crossman47 wrote: »

He didn't "hassle" her. He sent a polite letter.

He did hassle her. Any veneer of politeness or cordiality was washed off when he decided to send her the letter personally instead of to the editor of the newspaper she wrote into.

Overheal

paw patrol wrote: »

what's wrong with writing to somebody unsolicited ? You can post a letter to anybody and rightly so. Like how dare he?
I don't know how some of you leave your house each day with such precious attitudes.:rolleyes:

Imagine getting triggered by an unsolicited birthday invitation. “How did the Archbold’s get our home address? By what else: HATE CRIME.” It’s silly to me.

Letters to the editor usually contain address of the letter writer- if you don’t want random people writing letters to you then don’t write to newspapers

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

Letters to the editor usually contain address of the letter writer- if you don’t want random people writing letters to you then don’t write to newspapers

at most it would say a name and a broad geographic region... never an actual address

Not that I've ever seen

biko

You'll just have to learn that in NewSpeak criticism = hate.

gormdubhgorm

There was a thread which discussed Hate Crime's last year also in relation to disability and whether it should be classed a hate crime. It was an incident relating to an Irish woman with a disability. An individual who is a self styled 'activist'. It was picked up by an Irish paper and they ran with it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109915223

There currently is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. And I argued why not in the above thread.

Personally I do not believe it is necessary as it the creation of a unnecessary layer which is already more than adequately covered by regular Irish legislation.

I believe the creation of 'hate crimes' in legislation only succeeds in creating yet another box to put people in. When we should be encouraging people to look beyond differences rather than unnecessarily highlighting them. It only serves certain people with agenda's and bodies with those agendas who can engage in a box ticking exercise.

The example the OP gives is how the phrase 'hate crime' becomes used beyond it's intention. And is actually used by people where they are just a bit annoyed about something. Something that does not cause them any actual harm or threat.

So the whole intention of the creation of the 'Hate Crime' in the first place becomes diluted.

lawred2

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There was a thread which discussed Hate Crime's last year also in relation to disability and whether it should be classed a hate crime. It was an incident relating to an Irish woman with a disability. An individual who is a self styled 'activist'. It was picked up by an Irish paper and they ran with it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109915223

There currently is no hate crime legislation in Ireland. And I argued why not in the above thread.

Personally I do not believe it is necessary as it the creation of a unnecessary layer which is already more than adequately covered by regular Irish legislation.

I believe the creation of 'hate crimes' in legislation only succeeds in creating yet another box to put people in. When we should be encouraging people to look beyond differences rather than unnecessarily highlighting them. It only serves certain people with agenda's and bodies with those agendas who can engage in a box ticking exercise.

The example the OP gives is how the phrase 'hate crime' becomes used beyond it's intention. And is actually used by people where they are just a bit annoyed about something. Something that does not cause them any actual harm or threat.

So the whole intention of the creation of the 'Hate Crime' in the first place becomes diluted.

does it not say "non crime hate incident"

so not a hate crime

kravmaga

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Every report to police gets recorded on their computer system. This was probably what the cop felt was the best fit from a drop down list as waste of time isn't selectable.

There is also a drop down box on the UK PNC system for NFA also..

joseywhales

We must remember that he comes from a generation of personal accountability, not this current culture of anonymity. For him it is perfectly reasonable to engage any person via letter writing in reasonable debate. It's a beautiful practice that we are losing as that generation disappears. The narrative about him being a nice old man or whatever is a red herring, the contents of the letter is all he should be judged on and in my opinion they were perfectly reasoned without personal insult or threat.

NoLuckLarry

This is a great example of why anything purporting to be “hate crime” legislation should be roundly opposed. It’s only a smokescreen for these feeble soft minded “activists” to hide behind when they get their ass handed to them with logic and facts.

One eyed Jack

Overheal wrote: »

Is that in and of itself, any way a crime in the UK or a jurisdiction familiar to you?

I have unsolicited mail sent to me quite often. Some of it clearly triggered by information obtained from privileged sources, like the department of motor vehicles, credit unions and the like. I have an expunged arrest from years back, but the moment it was on the books I had lawyers from all over my region mailing me their canned solicitations. I find this unnerving, but is it criminal, threatening behavior? Or is it only threatening if the person doing it doesn’t want to sell me anything or demand a phantom debt from me? I fail to see where the line is that it crosses into becoming a crime.

You’re being surprisingly reductive Overheal tbh. The person in question is not facing criminal charges for their behaviour in this particular case.

Legislation in the UK is quite clear -


The College of Policing, which issues guidance to police dealing with hate crimes under the Public Order Act 1986, states on its website: “Where it is established that a criminal offence has not taken place, but the victim or any other person perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility, it should be recorded and flagged as a non-crime hate incident.”


The irony clearly went over his head because he sees himself as the victim in all this -


He called the case “absolute nonsense” and said it could put off other people from expressing their opinion in case they had the same experience.

He added: “I’m concerned and angry that my details have been permanently recorded by the police for a non-crime.”

NoLuckLarry

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re being surprisingly reductive Overheal tbh. The person in question is not facing criminal charges for their behaviour in this particular case.

Legislation in the UK is quite clear -


The College of Policing, which issues guidance to police dealing with hate crimes under the Public Order Act 1986, states on its website: “Where it is established that a criminal offence has not taken place, but the victim or any other person perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility, it should be recorded and flagged as a non-crime hate incident.”


The irony clearly went over his head because he sees himself as the victim in all this -


He called the case “absolute nonsense” and said it could put off other people from expressing their opinion in case they had the same experience.

He added: “I’m concerned and angry that my details have been permanently recorded by the police for a non-crime.”

The part I bolded is extremely dangerous nonsense to have as any part of law - your feelings don’t matter to anyone except you and there is absolutely no way the law should ever accommodate an action on your behalf because you feel “offended” by something.

NoLuckLarry

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

The part I bolded is extremely dangerous nonsense to have as any part of law - your feelings don’t matter to anyone except you and there is absolutely no way the law should ever accommodate an action on your behalf because you feel “offended” by something.

It's not part of a law.

AdrianBalboa

joseywhales wrote: »

We must remember that he comes from a generation of personal accountability, not this current culture of anonymity. For him it is perfectly reasonable to engage any person via letter writing in reasonable debate. It's a beautiful practice that we are losing as that generation disappears. The narrative about him being a nice old man or whatever is a red herring, the contents of the letter is all he should be judged on and in my opinion they were perfectly reasoned without personal insult or threat.

Nobody ever wrote letters to people’s homes in response to a letter in the paper, it was never common practice.

Annasopra

landofthetree wrote: »

But we have a right-wing government.

But the Irish government and this incident are nothing to do with each other.

One eyed Jack

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

The part I bolded is extremely dangerous nonsense to have as any part of law - your feelings don’t matter to anyone except you and there is absolutely no way the law should ever accommodate an action on your behalf because you feel “offended” by something.

Whatever about the rest of it, the part in bold is clearly not true.

Annasopra

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Nobody ever wrote letters to people’s homes in response to a letter in the paper, it was never common practice.

I know people that have received them before

AdrianBalboa

Annasopra wrote: »

I know people that have received them before

It was never common or acceptable practice. I'm sure it's happened a few times throughout history but it was never common.

NoLuckLarry

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of it, the part in bold is clearly not true.

But it is true - I don’t know you for example and I couldn’t care less what offends you or how you feel about anything. Maybe your family and nearest do but strangers? Nope