Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 52,010 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    biko wrote: »
    It's in the article.

    This bit

    I still think it was wrong to send it to her address.
    Why not address it to the letters page in the newspaper?


  • Options
    #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    Well that’s different and unless you know how to disarm an armed assailant then that’s run away all day. We are talking about someone without a machete though

    True.
    But you would probably be put in fear though, right?


  • Options
    #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    Well if you’re weak enough to stand in the street and be insulted to your face work away, in that hypothetical scenario I won’t. I don’t know what you find so incredulous about a man who’d put your teeth in the back of your skull than be a whimpering doormat?

    What if he was 7 foot tall and built like a brick sh1thouse and had a gun and was pointing the gun at your forehead?


  • Options
    #95
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,443 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    fvp4 wrote: »
    What if he was 7 foot tall and built like a brick sh1thouse and had a gun and was pointing the gun at your forehead?

    This is the thread about an 85 yo old man sending a letter of principled disagreement to a journalist right? :o


  • Options
    #96
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Pretty much everything now for 'accountability' and 'statistics'. Ring 999 and there's going to be a record on pulse now. Walk into a station and make whatever rubbish complaint you want. It will be recorded.

    Ok and are these things revealed when i'm garda vetted?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Overheal wrote: »
    This is the thread about an 85 yo old man sending a letter of principled disagreement to a journalist right? :o

    I was wondering how it got to this too, but now I want to see how hard Larry is.


  • Options
    #98
    archfi
    Registered Users Posts: 5,417 ✭✭✭archfi


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    No, they do not. A clearance only shows convictions and not even all convictions.

    As this is a UK case, The Times opinion on NCHI and enhanced DBS checks.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-police-records-of-hate-incidents-freedom-to-offend-v2gdfhlr7


    "At present, if an individual is reported for a hate crime, but police inquiries do not lead them to conclude that any crime was committed, then the police record the event as a “non-crime hate incident” (NCHI). These records do not merely linger in a bobby’s notebook or a police database. They show up on an enhanced DBS check, which an employer can request when considering an applicant for sensitive roles, like those in teaching or the caring professions."

    The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.

    The Entryism process: 1) Demand access; 2) Demand accommodation; 3) Demand a seat at the table; 4) Demand to run the table; 5) Demand to run the institution; 6) Run the institution to produce more activists and policy until they run it into the ground.



  • Options
    #99
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    ^^^^ this is what i'm getting at


  • Options
    #100
    NoLuckLarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭NoLuckLarry


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What if he was 7 foot tall and built like a brick sh1thouse and had a gun and was pointing the gun at your forehead?

    The chances of him being able to adjust his aim downwards to headshot a crouched and moving 6”2 male before I punch the ballbag out through his nostrils are pretty slim. I’d take my chances.


  • Options
    #101
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,443 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    archfi wrote: »
    As this is a UK case, The Times opinion on NCHI and enhanced DBS checks.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-police-records-of-hate-incidents-freedom-to-offend-v2gdfhlr7


    "At present, if an individual is reported for a hate crime, but police inquiries do not lead them to conclude that any crime was committed, then the police record the event as a “non-crime hate incident” (NCHI). These records do not merely linger in a bobby’s notebook or a police database. They show up on an enhanced DBS check, which an employer can request when considering an applicant for sensitive roles, like those in teaching or the caring professions."

    Jaysis. @Shield, without breaching anything what quality of data would be present in this type of report? "Joe Smithington 4/27/2017. Neighbor Paula Chestnut reports Joe mowed grass 3 inches onto her side of the property line. Perceived as hostile invasion by occupying force and destruction of property."

    ?

    And, are there qualitatively more good faith than bad uses of this system?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    The chances of him being able to adjust his aim downwards to headshot a moving 6”2 male before I punch the ballbag out through his nostrils are pretty slim. I’d take my chances.

    Pays to be short sometimes.

    What if there were ten of them, big guys, with two guns each, surrounding you and pointing the guns at your head? And a few snipers?


  • Options
    #103
    NoLuckLarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭NoLuckLarry


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Pays to be short sometimes.

    What if there were ten of them, big guys, with two guns each, surrounding you and pointing the hubs at your head? And a few snipers?

    Well in that case I would definitely make a complaint to the gardai saying I felt bullied and offended.


  • Options
    #104
    AdrianBalboa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 475 ✭✭AdrianBalboa


    Even if it is easy to find her address on the internet (I haven’t looked because I’m not a creep), that doesn’t excuse sending her a letter. It’s easy to steal sweets off a baby, it doesn’t mean it’s right.


  • Options
    #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NoLuckLarry wrote: »
    Well in that case I would definitely make a complaint to the gardai saying I felt bullied and offended.

    We all have our limits. Fair play.


  • Options
    #106
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,443 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    AdrianBalboa wrote: »
    Even if it is easy to find her address on the internet (I haven’t looked because I’m not a creep), that doesn’t excuse sending her a letter. It’s easy to steal sweets off a baby, it doesn’t mean it’s right.

    Ah here but it's not theft and it's not as though there was any menacing content.


  • Options
    #107
    AdrianBalboa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 475 ✭✭AdrianBalboa


    Overheal wrote: »
    Ah here but it's not theft and it's not as though there was any menacing content.

    I was pointing out that the perceived ease of committing an unethical act doesn’t make it less immoral. In fact in many cases it has the opposite effect.


  • Options
    #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Ok and are these things revealed when i'm garda vetted?

    No. Not unless they are specifically of interest for a particular role.
    Child protection for example.


  • Options
    #109
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,930 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Overheal wrote: »
    Ah here but it's not theft and it's not as though there was any menacing content.


    And that’s likely why the individual in question wasn’t charged with committing an offence under the Malicious Communications Act -


    Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

    (1)Any person who sends to another person—

    (a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—

    (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

    (ii)a threat; or

    (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

    (b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

    is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.


    Malicious Communications Act 1988


  • Options
    #110
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,120 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Was there intent to cause offence or harm etc?

    I don't see it at all.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #111
    Shield
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,812 CMod ✭✭✭✭Shield


    Overheal wrote: »
    @Shield, without breaching anything what quality of data would be present in this type of report?
    It's whatever the investigating officer saved on your record. Sample below available freely on slideshare from 2016. I don't think the words "non-crime hate incident" would look good if you were applying for a teaching job though.
    Overheal wrote: »
    And, are there qualitatively more good faith than bad uses of this system?
    Honestly no idea. It's all done by AccessNI up here.

    enhanced-dbs-certificate-jec-toms-front-1-638.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,443 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    And since these allegations go nowhere but sit on your record - this system is god awful. Burn it. At least this section of it where any errant note that is not a formal charge, given due process etc. is given any weight.


  • Options
    #113
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,930 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Leg End Reject wrote: »
    Was there intent to cause offence or harm etc?

    I don't see it at all.


    Apart from sending a letter to her home address in response to her letter in a national newspaper telling her that she “had joined the people who take the position that the only view which should be thought about is their own - a dangerous line in what I hope will remain a society that values free speech and opinion”… nope, there was no intent to cause offence.


  • Options
    #114
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,120 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Apart from sending a letter to her home address in response to her letter in a national newspaper telling her that she “had joined the people who take the position that the only view which should be thought about is their own - a dangerous line in what I hope will remain a society that values free speech and opinion”… nope, there was no intent to cause offence.
    There are people who consider their opinion to be fact, and as in this case, many identify as activists and object to any criticism of any group.

    He wrote a well thought out letter opposing her opinion and sent it to her readily available address.

    You can't demand privacy when you have all your details and thoughts so publicly available.

    She overreacted, a common trait amongst activists.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #115
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,443 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Apart from sending a letter to her home address in response to her letter in a national newspaper telling her that she “had joined the people who take the position that the only view which should be thought about is their own - a dangerous line in what I hope will remain a society that values free speech and opinion”… nope, there was no intent to cause offence.

    Granted. However I think the degree of offense here is academic at best.


  • Options
    #116
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Shield wrote: »
    It's whatever the investigating officer saved on your record. Sample below available freely on slideshare from 2016. I don't think the words "non-crime hate incident" would look good if you were applying for a teaching job though.

    Indeed. It seems unfair to not be convicted of a crime but still have a record of sorts. It’s kind of bypassing the court system. Well, not kind of. It is.


  • Options
    #117
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,930 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Leg End Reject wrote: »
    There are people who consider their opinion to be fact, and as in this case, many identify as activists and object to any criticism of any group.

    He wrote a well thought out letter opposing her opinion and sent it to her readily available address.

    You can't demand privacy when you have all your details and thoughts so publicly available.

    She overreacted, a common trait amongst activists.


    You can, in just the same way as when you send letters to someone, they get to decide what to do with the letter, not the person who sent it. If freedom of speech was that important to him, is it unreasonable to expect that he wouldn’t be afraid to express his opinions in public rather than writing letters to her personally?

    I don’t care that she’s an activist or he’s an old man, he should have responded in public if he was able to get all her details online so that everyone could see his opinions which he thought were of such importance.


  • Options
    #118
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,930 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Overheal wrote: »
    Granted. However I think the degree of offense here is academic at best.


    I’d agree it would be academic if he had written his opinions in public, perhaps in the same arena where he was able to find her personal details, but he made it personal by writing to her at her home address.

    Boundaries like.


  • Options
    #119
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,120 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You can, in just the same way as when you send letters to someone, they get to decide what to do with the letter, not the person who sent it. If freedom of speech was that important to him, is it unreasonable to expect that he wouldn’t be afraid to express his opinions in public rather than writing letters to her personally?

    I don’t care that she’s an activist or he’s an old man, he should have responded in public if he was able to get all her details online so that everyone could see his opinions which he thought were of such importance.

    You first sentence makes no sense.

    He responded personally to her, in a manner he has likely used all his life.

    Receiving a letter with no offensive or threatening content - the horror!
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Ok and are these things revealed when i'm garda vetted?

    Obviously not and I doubt anyone would care that you have a gun license or were in a minor crash where sometime tipped your car


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Indeed. It seems unfair to not be convicted of a crime but still have a record of sorts. It’s kind of bypassing the court system. Well, not kind of. It is.

    Unless there are child protection issues.


Advertisement