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

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The police, as an objective party, informed him that his behaviour is not acceptable.

Where are you getting that from? From the article:

"Mr Kedge said: “Thames Valley Police told me they have to keep a record, which is absolutely ridiculous."

And:

"Mr Kedge said: “The police officer was very polite and he seemed a little embarrassed by the whole thing. I told him that I understand that he was just doing his job.”

Strumms

lawred2 wrote: »

strange letter to write

Maybe, but..

Is it a crime ?

Is it hate ?

This hate crime stuff is too much also.. ‘hate’ is defined in almost every dictionary as... “ a feeling of intense dislike “...

To dislike something or somebody, intensely in a democracy and the ability to express that should be defended...

Leg End Reject

Strumms wrote: »

Maybe, but..

Is it a crime ?

Is it hate ?

This hate crime stuff is too much also.. ‘hate’ is defined in almost every dictionary as... “ a feeling of intense dislike “...

To dislike something or somebody, intensely in a democracy and the ability to express that should be defended...

Hate crime seems to "something I disagree with" in a lot of cases lately.

Strumms

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Hate crime seems to "something I disagree with" in a lot of cases lately.

Basically...

The same as when people disagree with immigration policy, the will always be a person ready to call ‘racist’ to try boost their agenda and argument.

Now merely disagreeing with someone... ‘hate crime’... it’s not ‘hate’ and it certainly should be no ‘crime’.

Sand

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Where are you getting that from? From the article:

"Mr Kedge said: “Thames Valley Police told me they have to keep a record, which is absolutely ridiculous."

And:

"Mr Kedge said: “The police officer was very polite and he seemed a little embarrassed by the whole thing. I told him that I understand that he was just doing his job.”

That is entirely the wrong attitude. Things have gotten this far because decent people have taken the higher road, risen above, turned the other cheek etc. They believed there was a moral majority. There isn't.

You don't win fights by being the better person. If you give a bureaucrat the excuse to side against you in a dispute because you complain the least about it, then they will do it every time. Mr Kedge is a second class citizen. He just doesn't realise it yet. Even if he did he would make excuses for the people harrassing him. They're just doing their jobs afterall.

Leg End Reject

Sand wrote: »

That is entirely the wrong attitude. Things have gotten this far because decent people have taken the higher road, risen above, turned the other cheek etc. They believed there was a moral majority. There isn't.

You don't win fights by being the better person. If you give a bureaucrat the excuse to side against you in a dispute because you complain the least about it, then they will do it every time. Mr Kedge is a second class citizen. He just doesn't realise it yet. Even if he did he would make excuses for the people harrassing him. They're just doing their jobs afterall.

My point was he didn't do anything wrong. There was a claim the police indicated he had.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?

I inferred it from the fact that he was interviewed by the police. According to the guidelines issued to police they have to record the incident if for example there is any hostility perceived by the victim, same article -


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.”

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I inferred it from the fact that he was interviewed by the police. According to the guidelines issued to police they have to record the incident if for example there is any hostility perceived by the victim, same article -


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.”

He was interviewed on foot of a complaint, but there is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate he was informed his behaviour was unacceptable.

Instead he states the police officer seemed embarrassed and apologetic, and he was assured that the force believed no criminal offence had taken place. His details were recorded as a matter of procedure.

You inferred your previous statement that the police informed him his behaviour was unacceptable from thin air.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

He was interviewed on foot of a complaint, but there is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate he was informed his behaviour was unacceptable.

Instead he states the police officer seemed embarrassed and apologetic, and he was assured that the force believed no criminal offence had taken place. His details were recorded as a matter of procedure.

Your inferred your previous statement that the police informed him his behaviour was unacceptable from thin air.

Sure, not according to you, but you asked me the question so I gave you my reasoning - the fact that the police were involved at all is enough to suggest that they were of the opinion that his behaviour was not acceptable. His account of the interaction with police is enough to suggest that it was good police work on their part in mediating appropriately so the situation didn’t escalate beyond what had already happened.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure, not according to you, but you asked me the question so I gave you my reasoning - the fact that the police were involved at all is enough to suggest that they were of the opinion that his behaviour was not acceptable. His account of the interaction with police is enough to suggest that it was good police work on their part in mediating appropriately so the situation didn’t escalate beyond what had already happened.

The police were involved because the recipient of the letter complained, they had to follow it up.

Again, there's nothing to suggest the police mediated to prevent escalation, no more than there's evidence they told him his behaviour was unacceptable. He was asked about it and his details recorded as per procedure.

Maybe say it's your opinion instead of stating it is as fact and quoting relevant legislation? If the legislation was relevant, and the police believed his behaviour was inappropriate and contrary to law, he would have been charged, not giving his account to the local newspaper.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Maybe, but..

Is it a crime ?

Is it hate ?

This hate crime stuff is too much also.. ‘hate’ is defined in almost every dictionary as... “ a feeling of intense dislike “...

To dislike something or somebody, intensely in a democracy and the ability to express that should be defended...

Did you miss the 'non crime' part in the title of the thread?

Strumms

bubblypop wrote: »

Did you miss the 'non crime' part in the title of the thread?

I didn’t miss a flicker, thank you.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The police were involved because the recipient of the letter complained, they had to follow it up.

Again, there's nothing to suggest the police mediated to prevent escalation, no more than there's evidence they told him his behaviour was unacceptable. He was asked about it and his details recorded as per procedure.

Maybe say it's your opinion instead of stating it is as fact and quoting relevant legislation? If the legislation was relevant, and the police believed his behaviour was inappropriate and contrary to law, he would have been charged, not giving his account to the local newspaper.

I don’t get where you’re coming from tbh. You’re saying he did nothing wrong, but obviously the police were of the opinion that he had done something wrong, or they wouldn’t have felt the need to record the incident as a non-crime hate incident as per the guidelines they are given for these kinds of situations? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to infer from that he would have been informed his behaviour was unacceptable? It’s my opinion, sure.

It’s also my opinion that they weren’t of the opinion that his behaviour amounted to warrant criminal charges. That seems reasonable and fair - he is of the opinion that the police officers shared his opinion of the situation, and there was no further escalation. That’s why I said it was good police work on their part, again my opinion.

The fact that he went to the papers afterwards is not a matter for the police (going to the papers I mean - the police may well follow up if they consider it necessary, there doesn’t have to be any complaint made to them).

Quantum Erasure

bubblypop wrote: »

Did you miss the 'non crime' part in the title of the thread?

How was it a 'hate incident' at all?

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

How was it a 'hate incident' at all?

I have No idea.
I don't know the criteria used in the police recording system

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

How was it a 'hate incident' at all?

That’s just how these types of incidents are recorded. It could be called “mickey mouse policy” and still be treated the same way. Recording incidents as non-crime hate incidents appears to be based upon hostility perceived by the victim or any other person where the incident doesn’t meet the criteria to be recorded as a crime -


Not every reported incident is a crime. If officers are unsure whether a reported incident amounts to a crime, an initial investigation should be undertaken to establish the facts to determine whether it is a hate crime or a non-crime hate incident.

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.


Responding to non-crime hate incidents


Bold emphasis my own.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s just how these types of incidents are recorded. It could be called “mickey mouse policy” and still be treated the same way. Recording incidents as non-crime hate incidents appears to be based upon hostility perceived by the victim or any other person where the incident doesn’t meet the criteria to be recorded as a crime -


Not every reported incident is a crime. If officers are unsure whether a reported incident amounts to a crime, an initial investigation should be undertaken to establish the facts to determine whether it is a hate crime or a non-crime hate incident.

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.


Responding to non-crime hate incidents


Bold emphasis my own.

So based on that why do you assume the police told him his behaviour was unacceptable?

The above contradicts that.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

So based on that why do you assume the police told him his behaviour was unacceptable?

The above contradicts that.

Because it’s a reasonable assumption based upon the fact that they recorded the incident as a non-crime hate incident, as opposed to being of the opinion that his behaviour was acceptable and there was no need to record the incident as a non-crime hate incident.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it’s a reasonable assumption based upon the fact that they recorded the incident as a non-crime hate incident, as opposed to being of the opinion that his behaviour was acceptable and there was no need to record the incident as a non-crime hate incident.

According to the article, which is the only information we have, the police assured him there was no crime committed before investigating.

However, he also claims the officer was embarrassed and apologetic, so I'd assume they thought the woman overreacted, but had to follow up.

Again, there is nothing to suggest a police officer told him his behaviour was unacceptable. He evens states he hopes it won't deter others from responding in a similar manner.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

According to the article, which is the only information we have, the police assured him there was no crime committed before investigating.

However, he also claims the officer was embarrassed and apologetic, so I'd assume they thought the woman overreacted, but had to follow up.

Again, there is nothing to suggest a police officer told him his behaviour was unacceptable. He evens states he hopes it won't deter others from responding in a similar manner.

Ok, I think I finally get where you’re coming from - there is no evidence they stated explicitly that his behaviour was unacceptable. Absolutely true and a fair point. There is evidence that they told him his use of language was unacceptable (the police report in this article), and the fact that they recorded the incident as a non-crime hate incident, as opposed to determining there was nothing to investigate, indicates the police were of the opinion that his behaviour was unacceptable. It wasn’t criminal, it was just unacceptable.

His claims that the police officers were embarrassed and apologetic certainly supports his belief that they agree with him, and suggests evidence of their perception and opinions of him, but it doesn’t suggest anything about their perception or opinions of the victim. I’m not arguing with your opinion that the police officers involved believe the victim overreacted.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, I think I finally get where you’re coming from - there is no evidence they stated explicitly that his behaviour was unacceptable. Absolutely true and a fair point. There is evidence that they told him his use of language was unacceptable (the police report in this article), and the fact that they recorded the incident as a non-crime hate incident, as opposed to determining there was nothing to investigate, indicates the police were of the opinion that his behaviour was unacceptable. It wasn’t criminal, it was just unacceptable.

His claims that the police officers were embarrassed and apologetic certainly supports his belief that they agree with him, and suggests evidence of their perception and opinions of him, but it doesn’t suggest anything about their perception or opinions of the victim. I’m not arguing with your opinion that the police officers involved believe the victim overreacted.

Did you actually read the report?

The only unacceptable issue noted in the police report is that he referred to a "Downs Syndrome child", rather than a "child with Downs Syndrome". Semantics over language, but noted his letter was polite and respectful. It also noted it's common practice to reply to the newspaper, rather than to a home address, but again no indicate of harassment, and states there was no breach of GDPR/Data Protection.

It was recorded because that's the procedure, but clearly states it wasn't malicious or harassment, just poor phrasing in respect of a child with Downs Syndrome.

So your previous inferences were incorrect. The offended party is now also taking action against the police and complaining about Mr. Kedge speaking to the papers. She just seems to be another member of the cult of the perpetually offended.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Did you actually read the report?

…

So your previous inferences were incorrect. The offended party is now also taking action against the police and complaining about Mr. Kedge speaking to the papers. She just seems to be another member of the cult of the perpetually offended.

I did read the report, and I don’t agree that my previous inferences were incorrect, and while it may appear that the victim in this incident is a member of the cult of the perpetually offended, it would also appear that the cult of the perpetually offended has a new member in Mr. Kedge (if he wasn’t a member already but he just never came to the attention of the police because nobody had previously made a complaint to them about his behaviour).

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did read the report, and I don’t agree that my previous inferences were incorrect, and while it may appear that the victim in this incident is a member of the cult of the perpetually offended, it would also appear that the cult of the perpetually offended has a new member in Mr. Kedge (if he wasn’t a member already but he just never came to the attention of the police because nobody had previously made a complaint to them about his behaviour).

There isn't anything to support he was told his behaviour was unacceptable, just one instance of phrasing. That's all.

He has a right to be annoyed because his details are now recorded for nothing more than a woman getting offended at receiving a letter at home. The fact that there was no data breach supports the fact that her address was easily obtained. She had a letter published with her name and locality and she's on twitter with her real name, so she's hardly overly concerned about privacy.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

He has a right to be annoyed because his details are now recorded for nothing more than a woman getting offended at receiving a letter at home.

I’m not disputing the idea that he has a right to be annoyed, everyone has that right. I’m saying that he also appears to be a member of the cult of the perpetually offended, for the very same reasons as your opinion that she appears to be a member of the cult of the perpetually offended.

Nobody made him write or send a letter to any individual, nobody made him go to the papers, nobody made him write a letter of complaint to the police, or anything else, he done all that himself, only he is responsible for the consequences of his actions, yet he appears to be more concerned about the idea that the whole incident and the way he’s been treated is nonsense and he’s calling for an ‘urgent and radical overhaul’ of the non-crime hate incident policy.

I dunno ‘bout you, but IMO his demands are just a tad unreasonable.

joseywhales

Let me get this straight, if I as a third party believe that the person who reported the old man to the police was motivated wholly or partially by hostility when she reported him, and I make such a report to the police, she will also have a report of a non-crime hate incident on her record? It's all based on my feelings? Even as an unrelated third party?

One eyed Jack

joseywhales wrote: »

Let me get this straight, if I as a third party believe that the person who reported the old man to the police was motivated wholly or partially by hostility when she reported him, and I make such a report to the police, she will also have a report of a non-crime hate incident on her record? It's all based on my feelings? Even as an unrelated third party?

How your complaint would be handled by the police would depend upon an assessment of your complaint -


Fanciful, vexatious, oppressive, or abuse of procedure

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not disputing the idea that he has a right to be annoyed, everyone has that right. I’m saying that he also appears to be a member of the cult of the perpetually offended, for the very same reasons as your opinion that she appears to be a member of the cult of the perpetually offended.

Nobody made him write or send a letter to any individual, nobody made him go to the papers, nobody made him write a letter of complaint to the police, or anything else, he done all that himself, only he is responsible for the consequences of his actions, yet he appears to be more concerned about the idea that the whole incident and the way he’s been treated is nonsense and he’s calling for an ‘urgent and radical overhaul’ of the non-crime hate incident policy.

I dunno ‘bout you, but IMO his demands are just a tad unreasonable.

He sent a respectful letter, as acknowledged by the police, to her home address. He included his own personal details, had he not the recipient wouldn't know who sent it.

She got offended, he got his details recorded. He's angry a non-threatening letter was reported and spoke out about it.

You claimed the police told him his behaviour was unacceptable. They did the exact opposite as per your own link.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You claimed the police told him his behaviour was unacceptable. They did the exact opposite as per your own link.

No I didn’t, and no they didn’t, according to my own link. This is why I don’t get where you’re coming from, because I didn’t claim anything as fact in the first place. It was obvious from the context of what I’d written that it was my opinion, formed on the basis that the police recorded the incident as a non-crime hate incident -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll make it really simple for you - he was acting under the impression that he had the right to do what he did. The police, as an objective party, informed him that his behaviour is not acceptable. He’s still of the opinion that he’s the victim and he’s very annoyed, very annoyed. He’s not being treated any differently to anyone else who did what he has done. He appears to be under the impression that the standards which apply to everyone in society shouldn’t apply to him.

If they had assessed the complaint as not warranting being recorded as a non-crime hate incident, then I’d have formed the conclusion that the police, as an objective party, would inform the complainant that there was nothing unacceptable about his behaviour having determined it didn’t even warrant being recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll make it really simple for you - he was acting under the impression that he had the right to do what he did. The police, as an objective party, informed him that his behaviour is not acceptable. He’s still of the opinion that he’s the victim and he’s very annoyed, very annoyed. He’s not being treated any differently to anyone else who did what he has done. He appears to be under the impression that the standards which apply to everyone in society shouldn’t apply to him.

There ya go.

Your inference doesn't reflect the reality.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

There ya go.

Your inference doesn't reflect the reality.

It does though? The reality is that they recorded a complaint made against the suspect, carried out an assessment, recorded the incident as a non-crime hate incident, and then contacted the suspect to inform them that their name had been recorded as being involved in a non-crime hate incident.

That caused him to become annoyed, and so the police had to explain why his name was being recorded. He told them he understood they’re just doing their job, and he understood why his name was being recorded as being involved in a non-crime hate incident, and then rather than just leave it at that (even to the point where in the follow up email, he was co-operative with the police), he decided to go full-on Barbara Streisand.