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

One eyed Jack

paw patrol wrote: »

an address isn't private nor protected. It's only nearly every form ever.
Name - Address.

Post is a valid and legal avenue of communication there is no prerequisite to know somebody to post them a letter. It beggars belief that you would think there should be. You are being overly sensitive as is your hero in the story.
As said previously - I wonder how some of you function in society

Hold your horses there Padre before you have a go at me or anyone else for being too sensitive. The OP posted a letter and a story about some old guy getting rapped on the knuckles by the police, that’s why I posted the old man yells at cloud meme, because it’s a non-story.

She expressed her opinion in public, he didn’t have the balls to, and then he starts crowing about how it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech, like his behaviour doesn’t? His freedom of speech is fine, hers isn’t, because she doesn’t think like him. He’s a prick, there’s a line you don’t cross and he crossed it. It’s not being over sensitive to say that his behaviour was out of line -

'I fear I'll be remembered as a victimiser': Retired teacher, 85, reveals his horror after his 'polite' letter to mother of baby with Down's syndrome defending a parent's right to abort was branded a 'hate incident' by police


If you’re going to accuse people of being over sensitive, at least hold everyone to the same standards.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

A question for any police officers here in Ireland: if I go into a police station and make a complaint that the way my neighbour hangs her clothes out is racist (too many white/black items), the police are correctly going to think it's a load of utter rubbish I'm talking. But are they free to just tell me to just go away, or do they have to record it in some way?

And if so, what are their options in terms of how it's documented or described or categorised?

Most will record it because that's the safe option and you don't get grief for recording a non crime report. It will go nowhere and means nothing really.

Pulse, despite what people seem to think, is not a Criminal record system. It's a total interaction recording system. It records everything and has many categories that are not criminal.

Your example I would say would be classified as 'attention and complaints - non crime' which really just means we are aware of it. It shouldn't, in my opinion, be there but that's the closest category. There's also a 'civil matter' category because again, we could still have some involvement.

I wouldn't, personally, record it further than my notebook based only on what you have said here or I could record that you are a lunatic but I wouldn't include the neighbour

osarusan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Most will record it because that's the safe option and you don't get grief for recording a non crime report. It will go nowhere and means nothing really.

Pulse, despite what people seem to think, is not a Criminal record system. It's a total interaction recording system. It records everything and has many categories that are not criminal.

Your example I would say would be classified as 'attention and complaints - non crime' which really just means we are aware of it. It shouldn't, in my opinion, be there but that's the closest category. There's also a 'civil matter' category because again, we could still have some involvement.

I wouldn't, personally, record it further than my notebook based only on what you have said here or I could record that you are a lunatic but I wouldn't include the neighbour

So lets say a Garda, just to be on the safe side, records it as the most minor/insignificant thing, which sounds like 'attention and complaints - non-crime'.

Nothing else happens after that, no other reports of any kind. Then say, a year later, my neighbour goes for a job that requires garda vetting...would this record show up?

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

So lets say a Garda, just to be on the safe side, records it as the most minor/insignificant thing, which sounds like 'attention and complaints - non-crime'.

Nothing else happens after that, no other reports of any kind. Then say, a year later, my neighbour goes for a job that requires garda vetting...would this record show up?

No.
It's hardly relevant

Mrs OBumble

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

I
He is a creepy weirdo. He looked up her address on the internet and wrote her a letter. He doesn’t even know her and he’s never met her. If that happened to me I would seriously get the creeps and so would the vast majority of the people reading this discussion.

Ah, no they wouldn't.

It's a letter with zero harmless or offensive content.

Wouldn't worry me in the keast to receive it. And if have received similar in the past.

joseywhales

I didn't realize we had the stasi for a police force. So all non crime events get recorded and can be used to prejudice somebody at any time in the future. All it requires is a complaint. I assume a counter complaint must receive the same treatment as an initial complaint. I suggest we all complain about each other, so the value of such a non crime entry on records is diminished to meaningless as it should be. What a bizarre system, we are rewarding snitches and curtain twitchers and more importantly wasted police time.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

I didn't realize we had the stasi for a police force. So all non crime events get recorded and can be used to prejudice somebody at any time in the future. All it requires is a complaint. I assume a counter complaint must receive the same treatment as an initial complaint. I suggest we all complain about each other, so the value of such a non crime entry on records is diminished to meaningless as it should be. What a bizarre system, we are rewarding snitches and curtain twitchers and more importantly wasted police time.

All rubbish and meaningless.
Gardai keeping records of incidents they attend has no prejudice against anyone, nor does it reward anyone.

WrenBoy

bubblypop wrote: »

All rubbish and meaningless.
Gardai keeping records of incidents they attend has no prejudice against anyone, nor does it reward anyone.

Its not really an incident though is it ?
Whoever answered the phone should have told the complainant to catch themselves on and not be bothering them with rubbish.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

Its not really an incident though is it ?
Whoever answered the phone should have told the complainant to catch themselves on and not be bothering them with rubbish.

Are you talking about the letter in the OP?
Didn't happen here.

joseywhales

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She expressed her opinion in public, he didn’t have the balls to, and then he starts crowing about how it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech, like his behaviour doesn’t? His freedom of speech is fine, hers isn’t, because she doesn’t think like him. He’s a prick, there’s a line you don’t cross and he crossed it. It’s not being over sensitive to say that his behaviour was out of line .

Yeah let's not get too sensitive :rolleyes:

Apparently the guy is a "prick" for writing her a personal letter.
How does that have a chilling effect on freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. Not that his letter was particularly critical, he merely asked that she consider another point of view on a sensitive subject.

Perhaps he wanted to ensure that she got his letter, that it wasn't ignored or lost by the newspaper or perhaps he wanted to engage her in personal debate without the prejudice of a public forum where maintaining ones public persona or the desire to 'win' a public debate can interfere with debate. It's perfectly valid that he wanted to understand her viewpoint personally. She was free to reply or not. I don't see the offense.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

All rubbish and meaningless.
Gardai keeping records of incidents they attend has no prejudice against anyone, nor does it reward anyone.

The fact that it is recorded means that it can be used against people in the future. Today's gardai are not necessarily tomorrow's gardai. Furthermore even now if one applies for certain sensitive jobs apparently it appears on some police reports, that is prejudice circumventing the criminal justice system and can be used as a threat to coerce somebody who works in childcare for example. Therefore, advantage complainant.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

The fact that it is recorded means that it can be used against people in the future. Today's gardai are not necessarily tomorrow's gardai. Furthermore even now if one applies for certain sensitive jobs apparently it appears on some police reports, that is prejudice circumventing the criminal justice system and can be used as a threat to coerce somebody who works in childcare for example. Therefore, advantage complainant.

No. If someone applies to work with children, they are vetted from a child protection point of view. Do you suggest that they shouldn't be?
Some rubbish where their cattle have wandered into someone else's land doesn't matter.
How could any incident be used against someone exactly?

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

The fact that it is recorded means that it can be used against people in the future. Today's gardai are not necessarily tomorrow's gardai. Furthermore even now if one applies for certain sensitive jobs apparently it appears on some police reports, that is prejudice circumventing the criminal justice system and can be used as a threat to coerce somebody who works in childcare for example. Therefore, advantage complainant.

You really are desperate to make this into something aren't you?

I'm a garda', I'm on pulse. So what?

Even if it was a Criminal complaint of some issue. Let's say your neighbor accused you of being verbally abusive. no conviction means it doesn't show on vetting.

What exactly is it that you would rather happen? That Gardai are selective about what gets recorded and what doesn't?

Again, pulse is not a criminal records system. That's maintained by the courts service. Pulse is a garda system used in the same way a companies customer system does.

I'm fact, it looks very similar to a system I used in my old job.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

No. If someone applies to work with children, they are vetted from a child protection point of view. Do you suggest that they shouldn't be?
Some rubbish where their cattle have wandered into someone else's land doesn't matter.
How could any incident be used against someone exactly?

Earlier in this thread there was a discussion about what can appear on reports and it was claimed that a non crime hate incident can appear on some reports depending on their level of depth. I see now though that they were discussing the psni as was the op, so perhaps pulse does not report these non crimes on a background check. If it is only convictions then I am fine, if non convictions ever get reported then clearly this circumvents the justice system and can be used to threaten and coerce , basically a system that is open to abuse. Accusations or complaints should not be reported.

joseywhales

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You really are desperate to make this into something aren't you?

I'm a garda', I'm on pulse. So what?

Even if it was a Criminal complaint of some issue. Let's say your neighbor accused you of being verbally abusive. no conviction means it doesn't show on vetting.

What exactly is it that you would rather happen? That Gardai are selective about what gets recorded and what doesn't?

Again, pulse is not a criminal records system. That's maintained by the courts service. Pulse is a garda system used in the same way a companies customer system does.

I'm fact, it looks very similar to a system I used in my old job.

That's all I wanted to know, no conviction means it cannot appear on any form of vetting.
As an example of coersion,
For example what would maurice mccabe's report look like?

stoneill

Must have been quite easy to find her address online if an 85 year old codger could do it.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

That's all I wanted to know, no conviction means it cannot appear on any form of vetting.
As an example of coersion,
For example what would maurice mccabe's report look like?

What would Maurice McCabe be on pulse for? Unless you know something other then his whistleblowing?

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

What would Maurice McCabe be on pulse for? Unless you know something other then his whistleblowing?

He was accused of sexual assault, was that recorded? And if he applied to work in the childcare profession, would it appear on a vetting form?

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

He was accused of sexual assault, was that recorded? And if he applied to work in the childcare profession, would it appear on a vetting form?

Ah I see what you mean.
Those details wouldn't be available for anyone to see, so I wouldn't know what could be recorded about that.
Do you think such allegations shouldn't be disclosed?

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

Ah I see what you mean.
Those details wouldn't be available for anyone to see, so I wouldn't know what could be recorded about that.
Do you think such allegations shouldn't be disclosed?

Yes because he was not convicted.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes because he was not convicted.

Well, thankfully in this country we are now more interested in child protection then we were for years, and we take their protection seriously.
So, anything that could possibly be a cause for concern, is important.
It's not about anything other than child protection.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

Well, thankfully in this country we are now more interested in child protection then we were for years, and we take their protection seriously.
So, anything that could possibly be a cause for concern, is important.
It's not about anything other than child protection.

But you can see then how sexual accusations can be used as a weapon even against an innocent person. And we enable that by reporting unsubstantiated accusations to potential employers.

One eyed Jack

joseywhales wrote: »

Yeah let's not get too sensitive :rolleyes:

Apparently the guy is a "prick" for writing her a personal letter.
How does that have a chilling effect on freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. Not that his letter was particularly critical, he merely asked that she consider another point of view on a sensitive subject.

No, he didn’t. He spelled it out to her in black and white that she had joined the people who take the position that the only view that should be thought about is their own - a dangerous line in what he hopes will remain a society that values free speech and opinion.

Coming to her home address from a complete stranger, that’s sinister as fcuk tbh. It’s not a letter offering support anyway, for all his claims of having lived a virtuous life. I can understand why she was upset having received the letter. He had to have known she had a child with Downs Syndrome and he still chose to send the letter to her home address banking on the idea that it would put her off expressing her opinions in public and nobody would be any the wiser about his behaviour.

joseywhales wrote: »

Perhaps he wanted to ensure that she got his letter, that it wasn't ignored or lost by the newspaper or perhaps he wanted to engage her in personal debate without the prejudice of a public forum where maintaining ones public persona or the desire to 'win' a public debate can interfere with debate. It's perfectly valid that he wanted to understand her viewpoint personally. She was free to reply or not. I don't see the offense.

You’re making him sound like an even more arrogant prick than I’d initially dismissed him as tbh! :pac: Why shouldn’t the same standards, which apply to everyone in society, not apply to him? Why should he be exempt? Why should she care what anyone else thinks she should have done or what they would have done?

I get that you don’t see the offence, but do you think that means that nobody else should be offended either? That would be you taking the position that the only view that should be thought about is your own, making no allowances for the fact that no, not everyone thinks the same way you do, and it still wouldn’t give you the right to look them up on the electoral register for example (as the easiest starting point to get someone’s name and address, but I’m old school), in order to pester them with your personal opinions which you imagine they need to be made aware of personally.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

But you can see then how sexual accusations can be used as a weapon even against an innocent person. And we enable that by reporting unsubstantiated accusations to potential employers.

It's a serious thing to be accused of but if my understanding of that complaint is correct, it wouldn't show up on a check.

I'm not in child protection, bubble might be so has more insight but only senior officers, the investigating Garda and child protection / sexual offences unit can see sensitive reports.

So in the case of Maurice McCabe;

A report was made. It was recorded and investigated. As it should be. The dpp after examining the garda file found that no offence had occurred.

A bog standard grunt like myself cannot access that information. We can't read it.

In addition, all pulse searches must have a reason attached and are recorded so if I look up a celebrity or politician (georgia saipa and Claire daly for example) I would 100% be ordered to make a report into why I looked that person up. If I had no legitimate reason, I'm in trouble.

In the case of Maurice McCabe, procedure was followed and was 100% correct, transparent and accountable. A commissioner lost his job over it after all.

joseywhales

Re:one eyed jack
You are using pretty emotive descriptions here, "pester" and "sinister", a man who wrote one letter without abuse or threat.

"for all his claims of having lived a virtuous life.", Did he make these claims?

It's a bit hysterical, he wrote somebody a letter in reply to a published letter using public information to find her address.

He didn't claim that her child with down syndrome should have been aborted, he merely pointed out that it is a valid decision that should not be judged or shamed should some parents choose to terminate early in pregnancy based on their circumstances. This is a reasonable point. You seem intent on painting a man you know nothing about as a pest and sinister.

One eyed Jack

joseywhales wrote: »

"for all his claims of having lived a virtuous life.", Did he make these claims?

He did -


He said: 'I am absolutely appalled that I now have a police record. I'm 85 and I have lived a fairly virtuous life up until now. I worked as an English teacher since 1957.

'I was chairman of the parish council and been the governor for two schools. But now at the age of 85 I find I have a police record. I am annoyed, very annoyed.

joseywhales wrote: »

You seem intent on painting a man you know nothing about as a pest and sinister.

Nah, I’ll settle for dismissing him as a grumpy old fart.

joseywhales

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He did -


He said: 'I am absolutely appalled that I now have a police record. I'm 85 and I have lived a fairly virtuous life up until now. I worked as an English teacher since 1957.

'I was chairman of the parish council and been the governor for two schools. But now at the age of 85 I find I have a police record. I am annoyed, very annoyed.





Nah, I’ll settle for dismissing him as a grumpy old fart.

Being a grumpy old fart is not worthy of police resources.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

But you can see then how sexual accusations can be used as a weapon even against an innocent person. And we enable that by reporting unsubstantiated accusations to potential employers.

No. Not true.
Any complaints of sexual assaults are of a criminal nature and are therefore investigated thoroughly.

joseywhales

bubblypop wrote: »

No. Not true.
Any complaints of sexual assaults are of a criminal nature and are therefore investigated thoroughly.

Yes and what happens after the investigation if the accused is found innocent? Will a record of the accusation show up on a vetting report for a childcare role?

Thats all I want to know really.

One eyed Jack

joseywhales wrote: »

Being a grumpy old fart is not worthy of police resources.

That’s not the reason he was interviewed by police though? He was interviewed by police because a complaint was made against him for his behaviour. No reason he couldn’t still be a grumpy old fart and keep his opinions to himself as opposed to risking upsetting people who he had to have known would be upset by his actions.