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

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

No, they investigated on foot of a complaint. His details had to be recorded as a result of that.

The police report YOU linked states it was a polite and respectful letter, not malicious and no harassment or data research occurred. The only issue was his wording "Downs Syndrome child".

You said you never claimed the police told him his behaviour was unacceptable. You did and I quoted it, you were wrong to come to that conclusion because the police said nothing of the sort.

That was my point, so case closed.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No, they investigated on foot of a complaint. His details had to be recorded as a result of that.

The police report YOU linked states it was a polite and respectful letter, not malicious and no harassment or data research occurred. The only issue was his wording "Downs Syndrome child".

You said you never claimed the police told him his behaviour was unacceptable. You did and I quoted it, you were wrong to come to that conclusion because the police said nothing of the sort.

That was my point, so case closed.

I wasn’t referring to the letter, I was referring to his behaviour. The police wouldn’t have recorded the incident at all if as you’re suggesting he did nothing wrong. According to the police report -

I have spoken with Mr. KEDGE to inform him of this record and he understands the necessity to record the agg'd point of view.

It’s not unreasonable to conclude on that basis that he was informed by the police that his behaviour was unacceptable. I didn’t make any claim that the police explicitly told him his behaviour was unacceptable, which is the point you still appear to be making. I wasn’t wrong to come to the conclusion I did. You just don’t agree with my conclusions, which is fair enough.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn’t referring to the letter, I was referring to his behaviour. The police wouldn’t have recorded the incident at all if as you’re suggesting he did nothing wrong. According to the police report -

I have spoken with Mr. KEDGE to inform him of this record and he understands the necessity to record the agg'd point of view.

It’s not unreasonable to conclude on that basis that he was informed by the police that his behaviour was unacceptable. I didn’t make any claim that the police explicitly told him his behaviour was unacceptable, which is the point you still appear to be making. I wasn’t wrong to come to the conclusion I did. You just don’t agree with my conclusions, which is fair enough.

It's in the post I quoted!

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

It's in the post I quoted!

No it’s not. I used the word ‘informed’, as in he was informed (in the context of interactions he had with the police), that his behaviour was unacceptable. You used the word ‘told’, which implies that I had said he was explicitly told by the police that his behaviour was unacceptable. There’s no record of the police being embarrassed or apologetic in that report either, but I’m not going to disagree with the idea that it is embarrassing to have to explain to him that what he did was unacceptable as though he wasn’t already aware that what he did was unacceptable even by his own standards.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not. I used the word ‘informed’, as in he was informed (in the context of interactions he had with the police), that his behaviour was unacceptable. You used the word ‘told’, which implies that I had said he was explicitly told by the police that his behaviour was unacceptable. There’s no record of the police being embarrassed or apologetic in that report either, but I’m not going to disagree with the idea that it is embarrassing to have to explain to him that what he did was unacceptable as though he wasn’t already aware that what he did was unacceptable even by his own standards.

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

Are you seriously going to argue the semantics of informed -V- told?

verb
past tense: informed; past participle: informed
1.
give (someone) facts or information; tell.
"he wrote to her, informing her of the situation"

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn’t referring to the letter, I was referring to his behaviour. The police wouldn’t have recorded the incident at all if as you’re suggesting he did nothing wrong. According to the police report -

I have spoken with Mr. KEDGE to inform him of this record and he understands the necessity to record the agg'd point of view.

It’s not unreasonable to conclude on that basis that he was informed by the police that his behaviour was unacceptable. I didn’t make any claim that the police explicitly told him his behaviour was unacceptable, which is the point you still appear to be making. I wasn’t wrong to come to the conclusion I did. You just don’t agree with my conclusions, which is fair enough.

Who do you think you are fooling here? The complaint was recorded because complaints, however frivolous are recorded. NinerL said that earlier on, and he is a policeman.

I could tell the local gardai that aliens anally probed me on Saturn and it would be recorded.

Leg End Reject

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who do you think you are fooling here? The complaint was recorded because complaints, however frivolous are recorded. NinerL said that earlier on, and he is a policeman.

I could tell the local gardai that aliens anally probed me on Saturn and it would be recorded.

At least it wasn't Uranus!

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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

Are you seriously going to argue the semantics of informed -V- told?

verb
past tense: informed; past participle: informed
1.
give (someone) facts or information; tell.
"he wrote to her, informing her of the situation"

I wasn’t going to, I didn’t imagine it would be interpreted as a claim that he had been explicitly told by police in those exact words that his behaviour was unacceptable. There’s nothing to argue as far as I was concerned.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn’t going to, I didn’t imagine it would be interpreted as a claim that he had been explicitly told by police in those exact words that his behaviour was unacceptable. There’s nothing to argue as far as I was concerned.

Once more for posterity:

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


Feel free to go about in circles, I've made my point.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who do you think you are fooling here? The complaint was recorded because complaints, however frivolous are recorded. NinerL said that earlier on, and he is a policeman.

I could tell the local gardai that aliens anally probed me on Saturn and it would be recorded.

Niner was responding to a very specific question about a very specific set of circumstances and giving his opinion on what he might do in that situation. However this is the policy regarding how complaints may be assessed in the UK, where this incident happened -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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


Fanciful, vexatious, oppressive, or abuse of procedure

I’m not sure how seriously your complaint would be taken, Saturn is a little outside their jurisdiction.