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

Shield

riffmongous wrote: »

It doesn't say she's an activist in your article.. which I guess is why the police have to keep a record. There's enough nutjobs out there who track down someone's home address to harass them.

If he wanted to reply he should have replied to the Newspaper

She describes herself as an activist in her own Twitter bio...

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.

Victim impact statements prove otherwise. The law does take feelings into account when it comes to sentencing.
Also many laws include 'put in fear' so more feelings taken into account there......

Overheal

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

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

It wasn't all smoke signals and singing telegrams you know. Written word is how we've communicated across distance for literal millennia. To suggest being communicated with in writing was "never acceptable" and "never common" seems to defy a preponderance of available evidence to the contrary.

You've never seen, heard of or received a letter from a "secret admirer?" Christ, some people might call that felony stalking and menacing now.

edit: I see you meant specifically letters to the home of the editor etc. - sorry

tdf7187

tdf7187 wrote: »

Ah I see the OP is a serving cop.

Well, my suggestion is that some of these people making complaints over trivial issues should be charged with wasting police time. It is an actual offense, still on the statute books, though rarely used.

It's not wasting police time unless you lie and are deliberately wasting their time.

People make all sorts of mad complaints and like the UK, we here now record everything.

Try it, call 999 and demand the Gardai for (insert stupid reason here). You will get a response.

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.

So if someone walks upto you in the street and started insulting you, that should be ok because it's not his or the polices concern that you are offended?

One eyed Jack

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

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

That’s not what you said though? I don’t care that my feelings don’t matter to you either, but to say they don’t matter to anyone else is simply untrue, and evidently so in this case where the victim is entitled to make a complaint to the authorities.

Sending letters to people who you don’t know does not mean the person is obligated to enter into any kind of dialogue or anything else. They’re absolutely entitled to make a complaint about your behaviour (not you personally obviously, but the person complaining that a complaint was made against them in this case). It’s up to the authorities to determine what to do with that information.

Rikand

What a very eloquent and well reasoned letter. Thank you for sharing that with us.

Leg End Reject

Overheal wrote: »

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.

This.

There was a time you'd think nothing of it and you'd even answer the landline without knowing who was calling.

He's 85 and sent an honest letter with no malice intended.

It boils down to being offended at someone disagreeing with you. I know abortion is an emotive topic, but abortions are sought for many reasons. None of us are in a position to judge anyone for deciding it's the best option for them, nevermind that it relates to fictional soap characters.

If anyone wants complete privacy stay offline and don't send letters to newspapers.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Shield wrote: »

Old guy in the winter years of his life send a cordial letter to an activist. Instead of engaging him in dialogue, she calls the cops and the letter gets recorded as a 'hate incident'. These "non-criime hate incidents" are such a drain on police resources. Nobody in the job thinks they're a good idea. Give me strength.

Not only that but AFAIK, they go on your record. So if a potential employer needed to do a clearance, they’d show up. Despite a crime not having been committed.

Interesting thing here is the old guy is progressive, he’s arguing a pro abortion case, and the activist is religious.

But the police probably had to investigate when she complained. That’s the problem with these laws. They waste everybody’s time.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Victim impact statements prove otherwise. The law does take feelings into account when it comes to sentencing.
Also many laws include 'put in fear' so more feelings taken into account there......

Victim impact statements have bog all effect and they shouldn’t have.

One eyed Jack

Overheal wrote: »

You've never seen, heard of or received a letter from a "secret admirer?" Christ, some people might call that felony stalking and menacing now.

You’re being purposely disingenuous really.

suicide_circus

Police recording "non crime hate incidents" is ****ing disgraceful

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Police recording "non crime hate incidents" is ****ing disgraceful

Police record all kinds of non crime incidents

tdf7187

tdf7187 wrote: »

Ah I see the OP is a serving cop.

Well, my suggestion is that some of these people making complaints over trivial issues should be charged with wasting police time. It is an actual offense, still on the statute books, though rarely used.

You would think the OP, if they are a serving cop, would not publicly comment in such a way. Poor.

AdrianBalboa

Overheal wrote: »

It wasn't all smoke signals and singing telegrams you know. Written word is how we've communicated across distance for literal millennia. To suggest being communicated with in writing was "never acceptable" and "never common" seems to defy a preponderance of available evidence to the contrary.

You've never seen, heard of or received a letter from a "secret admirer?" Christ, some people might call that felony stalking and menacing now.

Smoke signals? Singing telegrams? Sectret admirers? No offence but you're talking absolute rubbish and I'm beginning to wonder if you're on a wind-up.

Nobody said letter-writing wasn't common, but it was never common practice to read a letter to the editor in the paper, look up (on the internet!) where the author of the letter lives and send a letter to them, personally, in response to the original letter. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the practice of writing letters of itself. So you can consider any garbage you might be marinating about junk mail and birthday cards to be moot.

What was common, however, was that letters to the newspaper were written in response to previous letters to the newspaper. There's a bit of a history lesson for you, there.

suicide_circus

bubblypop wrote: »

Police record all kinds of non crime incidents

Do they? Like what?

NoLuckLarry

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So if someone walks upto you in the street and started insulting you, that should be ok because it's not his or the polices concern that you are offended?

It’s perfectly ok because I’m not going to go home and cry myself to sleep or run to the police, I’m going to knock that person the **** out.

AdrianBalboa

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

It’s perfectly ok because I’m not going to go home and cry myself to sleep or run to the police, I’m going to knock that person the **** out.

Yeah right. NoTrousersLarry, more like.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Do they? Like what?

Oh everything!
Sometimes people want things noted, but no action taken.
There maybe complaints made But no crime involved, they are recorded.
Basically everything these days

tayto lover

He’s entitled to his opinion.
He should never have sent that letter to someone’s home address though and I’d like to know how he obtained that address.
Why didn’t he send it to the newspaper?

Overheal

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Smoke signals? Singing telegrams? Sectret admirers? No offence but you're talking absolute rubbish and I'm beginning to wonder if you're on a wind-up.

Nobody said letter-writing wasn't common, but it was never common practice to read a letter to the editor in the paper, look up (on the internet!) where the author of the letter lives and send a letter to them, personally, in response to the original letter. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the practice of writing letters of itself. So you can consider any garbage you might be marinating about junk mail and birthday cards to be moot.

What was common, however, was that letters to the newspaper were written in response to previous letters to the newspaper. There's a bit of a history lesson for you, there.

I see. Then I misunderstood some of the context of the 'never acceptable' comment, when I responded to it. I apologize.

Shield

Oaklee Putrid Stockbroker wrote: »

You would think the OP, if they are a serving cop, would not publicly comment in such a way. Poor.

I do apologise. Off-duty cops expressing their own private views should never be a thing.

Feel free to write me a letter.

NoLuckLarry

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Yeah right. NoTrousersLarry, more like.

Well if you’re weak enough to stand in the street and be insulted to your face work away, in that hypothetical scenario I won’t. I don’t know what you find so incredulous about a man who’d put your teeth in the back of your skull than be a whimpering doormat?

One eyed Jack

sugarman wrote: »

If she doesn't want anyone to challenge her, she shouldn't be writing open letters to the media or posting as openly on social media as much as she does.

If she doesn't want to be contacted, don't put your details out there and restrict your DMs / mail on social media.

Couldn’t the same thing be said to anyone though?

If you don’t want your details to be recorded by the police, don’t do anything which will give the police a reason to record your details?

I’m not concerned with the content of the letter itself, nor the age of the people involved. It’s the behaviour which IMO was underhanded, when it would have been far more reasonable to respond in public if the person writing letters actually really gives a damn about everyone’s right to freedom of expression.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Not only that but AFAIK, they go on your record. So if a potential employer needed to do a clearance, they’d show up. Despite a crime not having been committed.

No, they do not. A clearance only shows convictions and not even all convictions.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Do they? Like what?

Pretty much everything now for 'accountability' and 'statistics'. Ring 999 and there's going to be a record on pulse now. Walk into a station and make whatever rubbish complaint you want. It will be recorded.

biko

tayto lover wrote: »

He’s entitled to his opinion.
He should never have sent that letter to someone’s home address though and I’d like to know how he obtained that address.
Why didn’t he send it to the newspaper?

It's in the article.

This bit

“She had said to them she had found the letter threatening and was uncomfortable with the fact I found her address.

“I found it on the web and the Times had given some information of where she lived anyway.”

I found it myself in 2 mins of googling

Overheal

sugarman wrote: »

A quick google of just this woman's name and her and her followers seems to find offense with everything and everyone, crying "hate" at every given opportunity.

Said quick google also brought up her own home address and contact details, that she has openly and willingly plastered all over the internet for anyone and everyone to contact her.

If she doesn't want anyone to challenge her, she shouldn't be writing open letters to the media or posting as openly on social media as much as she does.

If she doesn't want to be contacted, don't put your details out there and restrict your DMs / mail on social media.

I could understand her possible hurt, anger and/or frustration at receiving any genuine "hate" mail from any online trolls or anomalously posed letters in the same vein footballers and celebs receive similar hateful messages ..be it racist, sectarian abuse, death threats and what have you.

But that letter was a well written response, in a respectful tone with respectful points made. I fail to see any hate. Just an argument she didn't agree with ...and I fail to see anything threatening about it to concern police, given they didn't conceal their identity. Of which, is a well respected 85 year old man!

In what format is this plastered thusly? Curious

NoLuckLarry

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

Well if you’re weak enough to stand in the street and be insulted to your face work away, in that hypothetical scenario I won’t. I don’t know what you find so incredulous about a man who’d put your teeth in the back of your skull than be a whimpering doormat?

What if someone threatened you with a machete?

NoLuckLarry

bubblypop wrote: »

What if someone threatened you with a machete?

Well that’s different and unless you know how to disarm an armed assailant then that’s run away all day. We are talking about someone without a machete though