An insult to decency

[johncar54]

Arthur, I am surprised at your comment. Normally you read carefully what was written and then comment. In this case you have completely missed the point I was making. That was, that in most cases mentioning a persons race, nationality and religion (and even gender) have nothing to do with the crime they committed.

Here (in the forum) we are up in arms if anything is said which implies any possible anti Filipino sentiment. For example if a person jumps red right and the headlines read 'Filipino woman ignores traffic signal and endangers people.' I and probably most here would conside a possibly racist remark, as the fact that the offender was Filipino and a woman would have nothing to do with a person, any person, endangering life by jumping a red light.

If one feels the need to mention a persons race, colour or religion, when that has nothing to do with the thing they are talking about, then that implies they are prejudiced.

On the other hand if as someone suggested here, the police are looking for a suspect then their physical description would be relevant, but probably their nationality and religious views would not, thus if the police said a 'black man who was believed to be a Filipino and a Muslim' that probably be would be racist.

I know some here want to 'defend our right to free speech' but unlike burning poppies which is not a criminal offence making racist remarks is !

When Madeline McCann was taken, the Daily Mail and Express allowed certain derogatory remarks about the parents to appear in their forums. I contacted the editors and suggested they should consider editing them. They stood on their rights to print the comments as 'free speech.' Subsequently they each paid around half a million pounds in compensation for publishing remarks which amounted to libel.

[Dedworth]

Arthur, I am surprised at your comment. Normally you read carefully what was written and then comment. In this case you have completely missed the point I was making. That was, that in most cases mentioning a persons race, nationality and religion (and even gender) have nothing to do with the crime they committed.

Here (in the forum) we are up in arms if anything is said which implies any possible anti Filipino sentiment. For example if a person jumps red right and the headlines read 'Filipino woman ignores traffic signal and endangers people.' I and probably most here would conside a possibly racist remark, as the fact that the offender was Filipino and a woman would have nothing to do with a person, any person, endangering life by jumping a red light.

If one feels the need to mention a persons race, colour or religion, when that has nothing to do with the thing they are talking about, then that implies they are prejudiced.

On the other hand if as someone suggested here, the police are looking for a suspect then their physical description would be relevant, but probably their nationality and religious views would not, thus if the police said a 'black man who was believed to be a Filipino and a Muslim' that probably be would be racist.

I know some here want to 'defend our right to free speech' but unlike burning poppies which is not a criminal offence making racist remarks is !

When Madeline McCann was taken, the Daily Mail and Express allowed certain derogatory remarks about the parents to appear in their forums. I contacted the editors and suggested they should consider editing them. They stood on their rights to print the comments as 'free speech.' Subsequently they each paid around half a million pounds in compensation for publishing remarks which amounted to libel.

The Politically Correct Police Force now can't mention that the fugitive they are after is male along with his nationality and religion, who because of his nationality and religion might seek to conceal or be sheltered by and/or amongst that community.

You are correct - Poppy Burning like thousands of other actions is not a specific and listed criminal offence. However in this incident with its timing and action in a public place it is "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" and therefore contrary to Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act. There are also inciting racial hatred implications.

[les_taxi]

The Politically Correct Police Force now can't mention that the fugitive they are after is male along with his nationality and religion, who because of his nationality and religion might seek to conceal or be sheltered by and/or amongst that community.

You are correct - Poppy Burning like thousands of other actions is not a specific and listed criminal offence. However in this incident with its timing and action in a public place it is "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" and therefore contrary to Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act. There are also inciting racial hatred implications.

Let's hope is does become a criminal offence soon,I'm sure it's an offence for people to burn a Koran outside a mosque and shout Muslims burn in hell.

[keithAngel]

"using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" and therefore contrary to Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act. There are also inciting racial hatred implications.

Fantastic the catch all you will obey or be arrested you can be arrested for "any" action under this law including the nice policeman feeling "alarmed or distressed" of you filming what he is doing for example thats much more worrying an assalt on our liberty

You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

[aposhark]

........You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

Brilliant keithAngel

[grahamw48]

Brilliant keithAngel

Hardly.

It has to do with RELIGION not race...doh !

I would welcome any of those frightened Iraqi Christians into my home.

[Dedworth]

Fantastic the catch all you will obey or be arrested you can be arrested for "any" action under this law including the nice policeman feeling "alarmed or distressed" of you filming what he is doing for example thats much more worrying an assalt on our liberty

You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

Did you think that one up yourself or find it in the depths of the "old ones are always the good ones" folder ? Just a small step away from the tired Racist jibe

[keithAngel]

Did you think that one up yourself or find it in the depths of the "old ones are always the good ones" folder ? Just a small step away from the tired Racist jibe

Just the first one I found plenty more where that came from sorry its not from any of your prefered "30second " soundbites this kind of thing actualy is an "Insult to Decency"

[Dedworth]

Just the first one I found plenty more where that came from sorry its not from any of your prefered "30second " soundbites this kind of thing actualy is an "Insult to Decency"

Interesting video of Lancs Police from a fine upstanding newspaper.

A good illustration of "rigid by the book interpretation" from a PCSO and her cohorts of legislation brought in by the Labour Party. I wonder what the Labour chaired and dominated Lancs Police Authority thought about it, maybe it had some bearing on their recent decision to consider abolishing PCSO's (aka Blunkett Bobbies). I hope this Force adopt a similar Zero Tolerance approach and deal fairly but firmly with anyone using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others.

I'm sure this Force are even handed whilst dealing with offenders, I'd expect the qualities of Fairness and Northern Grit to be at the fore, I doubt if Lancs Constabulary needs to follow the Met Police in having an expensive, well manned Equality and Diversity Directorate. Well known Lancs MP and former Home Secretary Jack Straw is there to keep an eye on things.

[johncar54]

Fantastic the catch all you will obey or be arrested you can be arrested for "any" action under this law including the nice policeman feeling "alarmed or distressed" of you filming what he is doing for example thats much more worrying an assalt on our liberty

You Deadworth are doing exactly what you complain of " inciting racial hatred "

Thanks for that last comment, I have been trying to make that point in my posts here.

Re the first comment:- Unless things have changed, a person cannot be arrested for insulting a police officer. (One of the first things police in the Met learn is 'idle and silly words are unworthy of notice and should be ignored'). It has to be a member of the public

[Dedworth]

Thanks for that last comment, I have been trying to make that point in my posts here.

Re the first comment:- Unless things have changed, a person cannot be arrested for insulting a police officer. (One of the first things police in the Met learn is 'idle and silly words are unworthy of notice and should be ignored'). It has to be a member of the public

Here speaketh the man who eons ago (post 28) said in respect of charges that could be made " I think I have gone far enough with this. I don't want to go on and on following tangents"

I'd have thought the Police protecting the poppy burners would not find it difficult to follow the example of Sherlock Holmes and deduce that "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" were not directed at the Police but at the general "British" population and servicemen.