Mail: "Verbal Or Physical Attacks On Armed Forces Personnel 'To Be Hate Crimes'"

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#2
I disagree that this "post-Woolwich" knee jerk reaction by MPs is necessary. While I am more than familiar with particular cases where service personnel have been attacked, the catalyst for those incidents have often been the fact they are wearing the uniform or have drawn attention to themselves in a public place. Pretty much every anti-social of violent crime covered by the CJA 03 has a basis on 'hate', as demonstrated by the anger displayed by the alleged attacker. But the nature of a "hate crime" was to protect those who cannot hide who they are: homosexuals, the disabled, the elderly, those of ethnic origin, etc. Those "afflictions" (for want of a better word) are with them 24/7 and cannot be taken off like a uniform or hidden behind the barbed wire fence of the barracks.

I have no doubt the amendment to the Act will get some rather vocal support, but there is already plenty of legislation to protect the victim and prosecute the suspects involved in violent crimes. While the murder of Lee Rigby was an extreme but isolated incident, I do not think it is necessary to single out Service personnel for protection against "hate crime" is necessary, as the MOD has already said according to their press statement, mentioned in the aforementioned article.
 

hackle

Lantern Swinger
Moderator
#3
Similar ideas were floated before the murder of Lee Rigby.

I am sure the proposal is well-meant, but I don't support it.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
Similar ideas were floated before the murder of Lee Rigby.
Of course; but I imagine some MPs/areas of the media in support of the Amendment will no doubt try to exploit his death for emotive purposes... :oops: (See photo of Rigby in the DM story as linked in the OP)
 
Last edited:
#5
Shame they didn't do this in the 70's when "skate bashing" was rife in DSC. Most of the pompey natives would have a (longer) criminal record if they had.
 

cjg375

Lantern Swinger
#7
But the nature of a "hate crime" was to protect those who cannot hide who they are: homosexuals, the disabled, the elderly, those of ethnic origin, etc.

but there is already plenty of legislation to protect the victim and prosecute the suspects involved in violent crimes.
I thought the idea of hate crimes legislation was to bring in a higher tariff of punishment for crimes directed at particular groups, not to protect those groups, who are, after all, as protected as military personnel by the very same existing laws. I don't agree with hate crimes legislation as I think an attack on one person should not be considered worse than any other but if we're going to have it then I've no problem with military personnel benefitting from it.


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#8
Its the smoke and mirrors game again, hoping that the great unwashed will think that they are doing something about a particular problem, increased tariffs are only any good if they are used, this isn't normally the case so its a pointless exercise.
 

FAAFLYNAVY

Lantern Swinger
#10
Do we need a law on this? I remember some years ago when a para was beaten up in Aldershot by a gang of scumbag locals who soon become marked men, duly got serious good hidings, & were forced to leave town never to return.
 
#13
Would this law prevent bars/nightclubs from turning you away simply for believing you are forces? I do find it slightly disgusting that you can be on a night out and turned away simply as they believe you are serving. They even check what driving entitlements you have as an indicator. You could not say to a group of black men you can't come in because you are black so why should it be any different because they believe you are serving?
I don't think this has a direct link to Lee Rigby there have been a few instances of protests at home coming etc etc.
 
#15
Hate crime…...I was always under the impression that assault was assault, unless it could be proved that the crime was directed to a specific group/orientation/race? Then it became a hate crime.
 
#16
My issue is they have put the Army followed by the Air Farce and then the Navy. Unless of course they are talking about the yanks?

Bloody journos!


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
 
G

guestm

Guest
#18
Would this law prevent bars/nightclubs from turning you away simply for believing you are forces? I do find it slightly disgusting that you can be on a night out and turned away simply as they believe you are serving. They even check what driving entitlements you have as an indicator. You could not say to a group of black men you can't come in because you are black so why should it be any different because they believe you are serving?
This has been covered at length here and on Arrse. Long story short: large groups of blokes are often turned away from bars and clubs not just servicemen. Mainly due to varying factors including pack mentality, barrack town friction etc.
 
#19
I am a little confused as to where the cut-off point would be where a "hate" crime becomes just a simple assault. For instance if a soldier in uniform was attacked by people because he might have been fighting in Afghanistan would that be seen as a more serious scenario than if the same soldier was attacked by the same people going home in civvies.
 
#20
I am a little confused as to where the cut-off point would be where a "hate" crime becomes just a simple assault. For instance if a soldier in uniform was attacked by people because he might have been fighting in Afghanistan would that be seen as a more serious scenario than if the same soldier was attacked by the same people going home in civvies.
Depends on what civvies he's wearing, an EDL shirt won't go down too well in some areas of Brixton or Bradford.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R094V1-George Miscellaneous 0
R094V1-George Miscellaneous 0
The_Caretaker Miscellaneous 0

Similar threads

New Posts