Driver convicted after reversing into cyclists and calling them “English bastards”

Captain Badger wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Wearing a dark grey three-piece suit, shirt and tie, black overcoat and a black hat (if it matters, I have a beard and glasses).

Are you a spy?

Nah a hipster. He probably had an avocado under the hat

Avocados are the food of the devil.  Disgusting things.

Anyway, I'm too old to be a hipster, and I've never ridden a fixie...

brooksby wrote:

.....

Avocados are the food of the devil.  Disgusting things.

Anyway, I'm too old to be a hipster, and I've never ridden a fixie...

That's just what I'd expect a Hipster to say

Captain Badger wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Wearing a dark grey three-piece suit, shirt and tie, black overcoat and a black hat (if it matters, I have a beard and glasses).

Are you a spy?

Nah a hipster. He probably had an avocado under the hat

You've fallen for BOTH his disguises! He was a "rootless cosmopolitan" all along. (Borrowing the Soviet Russian term because sadly highly relevant now).

chrisonatrike wrote:

"rootless cosmopolitan"

Presumably that's one that's not made with potato vodka?

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Wearing a dark grey three-piece suit, shirt and tie, black overcoat and a black hat (if it matters, I have a beard and glasses).

Are you a spy?

They weren't dark glasses.

Anyway, I couldn't tell you if I was

brooksby wrote:

......

I can add something to that.

A few years ago (pre-Covid when I dressed smartly to come to the office) I was walking in Bristol city centre on my lunch break.

Wearing a dark grey three-piece suit, shirt and tie, black overcoat and a black hat (if it matters, I have a beard and glasses).

Three man walking past me, then stopped and shouted at me about "F-ing Jews!" (and I mean properly in-yer-face about it).

So, given that I am not Jewish, was that antisemitic harassment?

Wow, what a horrible experience, I'm really sorry to hear that.

My understanding is yes, it is. It was the act and intent of the individual that is the crime, whether or not they got it "right". Philosophically the fact that they got it wrong only further illuminates their ignorance, however, that's probably non-admissible.....

This is from Citizens Advice (see particularly last paragraph)

CAB wrote:

What is ‘race'

Race means being part of a group of people who are identified by their race,colour,

nationality, citizenship, or ethnic or national origins.

If you are part of one of these groups and you experience discrimination, this counts as race discrimination.

Even if you’re not part of one of these groups, it still counts as discrimination if someone discriminates against you because they think you are. This is known as perceived race discrimination.

I presume that this principle is common to all circumstances

I seem to remember that Mikey got abused for being South African (I think he's from Zimbabwe, and is a Dutch national) and the police offered to charge the perp with a racially aggravated offence. In that case Mikey turned the offer down in order to concentrate on the motoring offence.

brooksby wrote:

So, given that I am not Jewish, was that antisemitic harassment?

As far as I understand it, yes (IANAL, though): if I were cycling with my black mates and someone drove a car at us with the intention of harming black people, even if I (a white person) were the only person to be injured they could still be charged with racially motivated assault. It's the motivation of the perpetrator rather than the accuracy of their understanding of whom they are attacking that is the crucial factor, I believe. Willing to stand corrected of course.

Rendel Harris wrote:

.....

As far as I understand it, yes (IANAL, though): .....

Sorry, not familiar with that acronym (and there's no way I'm Googling it on a work computer....)

Does look dodgy, doesn't it! I Am Not A Lawyer.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Does look dodgy, doesn't it! I Am Not A Lawyer.

Aaaah, thanks

Yes.

The racial element can be committed on someone's perceived race even if it isn't actually true. Some of my colleagues have been racially abused on the assumption that they are from Pakistan. Not actually true, but the demonstration of racial hatred either at the time, immediately before or after the offence wil suffice. 
 

similarly one can be convicted of homophobic aggravation by using homophobic language at the time of an assault which is depressingly common. 

Almost all decisions in relation whether to charge a hate crime are made by the CPS rather than the police and there's a lot of interesting case law about what is and what isn't a "race" or religion. 
 

I think there are many of us who are grateful for these views from the other side of the fence, as they arise from an openly declared member of the police who has to be careful what he writes.

Captain Badger wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

He was found guilty of racially aggravated harrassment, so I assume reference to nationality counts the same as race under the law?

I understand that the racial identity of the victim does not have to be demonstrated, rather whether the act of harassment was motivated by bias around race as the accused perceives it.

For once Rich below is correct, there are no objective definitions of race, only subjective and cultural meanings and inferences.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/28

Meaning of "racially or religiously aggravated".

(1)An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—

(a)at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or

(b)the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.

(2)In subsection (1)(a) above—

    "membership", in relation to a 2racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;

    "presumed" means presumed by the offender.

(3)It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, 3on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.

(4)In this section "racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

(5)In this section "religious group" means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

This and similar quoted definitions fail to tell us what race is:

""racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to race," or some other characteristics.

Race seems to be a concept that vanishes wheneve you start to examine it. "Hating People and Wanting to Harm them"  seems rather more clear.

janusz0 wrote:

This and similar quoted definitions fail to tell us what race is:

""racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to race," or some other characteristics.

Race seems to be a concept that vanishes wheneve you start to examine it. "Hating People and Wanting to Harm them"  seems rather more clear.

You are correct

In context with the offence, there does not need to be an objective definition of race, nor an agreed qualification to belong to one. The crime is from the perspective of the assailant, the harm of course being from the perspective of the victim(s).

In other words you don't need to be correct (or even logical) in your assertions, or the premises that support those assertions, to commit a racially aggravated offence. Which of course (when considered with the distress and harm that these premises and assertions inflict on others) is the entire point.

I'm just thinking that my son works in Bangor and sometimes cycles in the area. As he is Scottish I'll tell him to wear tartan and/or kilt next time so it will be clear he is not English (or from the Netherlands). That will keep safe, aye right.