Can we please shoot the PC Brigade?

[RobLev]

Clearly the Religious linking by NM wasnt accurate, but running off to the police (in the context of a rugby tournament ) when leggins were not permitted, says more about the lady than it does about NM to me.

As it does to me.

I was replying to Didds as to whether police would respond to his hypothetical question, history says they wouldn't.

And I was pointing out that this particular instance proves you incorrect. The woman in the OP was complaining about the very same thing you complain about; perceived discrimination in favour of (in this case religious) minorities. The police didn't just listen to her, they took her complaint seriously enough to question NM about it.

 

[crossref]

Hi Crossref.
I usually enjoy your posts but am struggling in this rare instance to back you up, you really do seem to have ascribed some unpleasant characteristics to poor NM.

really, I am not. NM reports a very brief conversation on the sidelines of a rugby pitch -- which led to two policeman arriving at the ground within thirty minutes.

that's quite an extraordinary incident, NM's account of the whole conversation is limited to --

said something along the lines of '... kids in extreme weather and Muslim women for religious reasons only ...'

A woman seated to our left stood up and said 'How dare you differentiate on sex and religious grounds? If my players want to wear stockings, they will do so and you cannot stop them'. I responded that they were not allowed in the Laws but we will leave it to the organisers to sort out. We beat a hasty retreat and left her to it

 

[Browner]

One for the lawyers - could NM have been offended that she is offended about things on racial, sexist and ageist grounds, thus making his being offended a matter of racial, sexist and ageist offense, and reported HER to the police?

didds

Roblev is saying yes.

 

[SimonSmith]

really, I am not. NM reports a very brief conversation on the sidelines of a rugby pitch -- which led to two policeman arriving at the ground within thirty minutes.

that's quite an extraordinary incident, NM's account of the whole conversation is limited to --

You're implying - well, actually stating directly - that NM isn't telling the whole truth.

I think you'll find that to most folks that is an attack on someone's integrity. As I said in my post, I know that people can be as loopy as NM makes out. I've seen it and investigated it.

 

[RobLev]

Roblev is saying yes.

RobLev is saying no such thing. Although, given that we have police forces that will use powers provided to them for prevention and detection of crime to trace the owner of a Twitter account so as to visit him and try to persuade him to take down a tweet critical of the UKIP (presumably under the Let's not be beastly to the UKIP Act 2014), anything is I suppose possible.

In fact, simply offending someone, even by reference to race/religion/other protected category is no crime. The rationale for their involvement in the OP scenario is questionable. My point was that their actions in the OP demonstrate that they are quite prepared to get involved on the side of the anti-PC brigade.

 

[Daftmedic]

Hazy thought.
To have a equality and diversity law you must first be prejudicial by labelling people according to beliefs and culture.

 

[OB..]

In fact, simply offending someone, even by reference to race/religion/other protected category is no crime. The rationale for their involvement in the OP scenario is questionable. My point was that their actions in the OP demonstrate that they are quite prepared to get involved on the side of the anti-PC brigade.

No, they are simply following the procedure required after the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, as I pointed out earlier.

A major unknown is how the woman reported the incident to the police.

 

[Browner]

RobLev is saying no such thing. Although, given that we have police forces that will use powers provided to them for prevention and detection of crime to trace the owner of a Twitter account so as to visit him and try to persuade him to take down a tweet critical of the UKIP (presumably under the Let's not be beastly to the UKIP Act 2014), anything is I suppose possible.

In fact, simply offending someone, even by reference to race/religion/other protected category is no crime. The rationale for their involvement in the OP scenario is questionable. My point was that their actions in the OP demonstrate that they are quite prepared to get involved on the side of the anti-PC brigade.

Eh?
I said they wouldnt ( post 34)
You said I was incorrect (post 41)
So I took this to mean you thought they would (post 43)
But you say that's incorrect (post 45)

Which I think means you're disagreeing with both sides of the same point, presumably this is lawyer 'milking the cow' training? : )
If I've misunderstood, then please answer Didds post #7 original question yourself, that way I can step aside.

 

[Shelflife]

I certainly have NOT called into question's NM's integrity, I have just said that I suspect his original post doesn't report the entire conversation.

But you have, by your own admission (above) you have cast dispersions on the story that he told and said that he's not telling the whole truth, that's as close as you can get to calling someone a liar without actually calling them a liar.

Now if you were there and saw/heard what happened then fine, but as you weren't , then we have to take the facts as NM stated them.

BTW deal with the public every day and there's a lot of mad ones out there, had an official complaint made against me that I was asking customers personal questions in front of people. What was the question I hear you say, I asked her how her mother was keeping?

Full investigation, when it was thrown out she sent the letter back to the sender with corrections and replies written in red on it.

 

[RobLev]

Hazy thought.
To have a equality and diversity law you must first be prejudicial by labelling people according to beliefs and culture.

No; you need to recognise that people do label others according to perceived race, beliefs and culture.

 

[RobLev]

No, they are simply following the procedure required after the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, as I pointed out earlier.

A major unknown is how the woman reported the incident to the police.

I agree on the unknown factor; but there's nothing in what NM said that would give rise to any suspicion in the minds of the police that any offence has been committed.

It is important to realise that the issue of racial aggravation broadly only arises once a crime has been established. There is no crime of racism; the relevance of racism (sexism etc) is that it is an aggravating factor to an underlying crime. Giving racial offence is not a crime; using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred (for example) is.

 

[RobLev]

Eh?
I said they wouldnt ( post 34)
You said I was incorrect (post 41)
So I took this to mean you thought they would (post 43)
But you say that's incorrect (post 45)

Which I think means you're disagreeing with both sides of the same point, presumably this is lawyer 'milking the cow' training? : )
If I've misunderstood, then please answer Didds post #7 original question yourself, that way I can step aside.

Your claim (#11) with which I originally took issue was that:

...such discriminatory matters invariably only seem to work one way. This is the current climate that needs to re-balance.

Which I took to be a claim that "they" only ever took notice of discrimination by the majority against a minority; that discrimination the other way - by a minority against the majority - is ignored. The precise content of Didds' question is irrelevant to that claim. If I have misunderstood that claim, then please explain what you did mean.

I was pointing out that the complaint upon which the police acted was by a member of the (non-Muslim) majority against someone she took to be a member of a minority discriminating against the majority - precisely the direction of complaint that you claimed that "they" ignore.

Didds' question is answered by my #45.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Toby.

1 My suspicion that NM is not fully disclosing the conversation is that his account of it is so brief and innocuous - but yet led to his interlocuter calling the police. I suspect that - in fact - more was said

2 the reason I assumed that the players they were discussing were female is that NM reports the dialogue as



players wearing 'stockings' just sounds like they were discussing female players, to my ears...

crossref, in the real world, there really are "nutters' like that woman. Most of us who have been on the planet for a while, will have encountered them.

 

[Taff]

crossref, in the real world, there really are "nutters' like that woman.

I agree, but the problem surely is that the state now seems to pander to them. Eg well intentioned laws are passed which feed their expectations, and the Police then feel obliged to take it seriously, when in reality IMO she should politely have been told to piss off and stop wasting Police time.

Everyone has the right to be eccentric, a nutjob or a crank .... but please don't try imposing your views on others and certainly don't expect my hard earned to make life easier for you.

 

[Browner]

Your claim (#11) with which I originally took issue



Which I took to be a claim that "they" only ever took notice of discrimination by the majority against a minority; that discrimination the other way - by a minority against the majority - is ignored. The precise content of Didds' question is irrelevant to that claim. If I have misunderstood that claim, then please explain what you did mean.

I was pointing out that the complaint upon which the police acted was by a member of the (non-Muslim) majority against someone she took to be a member of a minority discriminating against the majority - precisely the direction of complaint that you claimed that "they" ignore.

Didds' question is answered by my #45.

So, in summary.
Didds asks ...could NM complain, overall I say I doubt it, you either agreed or disagreed, I'm unsure which!!!! ... Ever considered a career in politics ? xx
Zzzzzzzz

 

[RobLev]

So, in summary.
Didds asks ...could NM complain, overall I say I doubt it, you either agreed or disagreed, I'm unsure which!!!! ... Ever considered a career in politics ? xx
Zzzzzzzz

Didds asked if NM could complain about any offence he took from the anti-PC individual's being offended. And, if you read my post for meaning, you'd learn that offending someone is no crime. Is it really necessary for me to spell out that that means that while he could complain, any such complaint should lead nowhere?

That the anti-PC complaint did lead somewhere shows that not every "ought" is an "is"; and that, combined with their intervention in favour of UKIP, shows that (contrary to your point) the police are even-handed about how they (mis?)use their powers.

Ever considered a career in tabloid journalism? :booty:

 

[RobLev]

crossref, in the real world, there really are "nutters' like that woman. Most of us who have been on the planet for a while, will have encountered them.

Agreed; but what many people don't notice is that (as the OP demonstrates) they come from both ends of the PC spectrum.

 

[Dickie E]

Now if you were there and saw/heard what happened then fine, but as you weren't , then we have to take the facts as NM stated them.

Well, they can hardly be facts if we haven't heard the other side of the story

 

[Dickie E]

Slight hijack but interested in thoughts. This happened this morning:

Gold U15 school's team lost be a couple of points and usual grumbling after the game. No player had numbers on their shirts. One player said something marginally over the line (can't even remember what it was) and I said "you with the red hair - over here please with your captain". Gave him the usual tongue lashing. Then copped a complaint from a parent that I hade used a distingusihing feature (red hair) to single the boy out. Discrimiation or something.

 

[leaguerefaus]

I must say I am very confused by the scenario posted by the OP. What on earth was this woman doing at a rugby match?

Shouldn't she be at home in the kitchen?