Homophobic abuse from dog walker (From Daily Echo)

Are the police really wasting time on this?

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Yes. For wearing black heavy-rimmed glasses and had a goatie and was walking a Yorkshire terrier with a pink collar.
He should be locked up for that alone.

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Naturally they have to waste time on any incident where someone's sexuality or faith was targeted.

I think some people should just get thicker skin, especially as it sounds like a passing incident. Had this incident been more serious then deal with it accordingly.

Are they sure it was a Boris Johnson "mask"?

Ford Prefect wrote:
Are they sure it was a Boris Johnson "mask"?

Easily confused with Claire Balding.

Look out Austin Powers the police are after you. Yeah baby

I hope these master criminals are put behind bars soon. Bring back hanging. Etc.

Taskforce 141 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Naturally they have to waste time on any incident where someone's sexuality or faith was targeted.

I think some people should just get thicker skin, especially as it sounds like a passing incident. Had this incident been more serious then deal with it accordingly.

Why should people get a thicker skin? I don't think it's a waste of police time at all. It's not acceptable to abuse people in the street over their race, religion or sexuality. Are you saying we should just tolerate these morons because Police resources could be better spent? Does the victim have to wait until they're beaten up before they report a crime? Truly pathetic.

userds5050 wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Naturally they have to waste time on any incident where someone's sexuality or faith was targeted.

I think some people should just get thicker skin, especially as it sounds like a passing incident. Had this incident been more serious then deal with it accordingly.

Why should people get a thicker skin? I don't think it's a waste of police time at all. It's not acceptable to abuse people in the street over their race, religion or sexuality. Are you saying we should just tolerate these morons because Police resources could be better spent? Does the victim have to wait until they're beaten up before they report a crime? Truly pathetic.

You called him pathetic, time to get the police involved. Does Taskforce 141 have to wait until you beat him up before he reports this crime?

The country is full of people verbally abusing one another in some form. Should that really be a police matter? It would probably be the only matter the police had time to look into, given the sheer scale.

We don't even know what 'homophobic abuse' meant in this story, or whether the victim was even homosexual. For all we know, someone just shouted "Oi, dyke!" at a random stranger for no reason whatsoever. Let's not pretend it's the great train robbery just yet.

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Naturally they have to waste time on any incident where someone's sexuality or faith was targeted.

I think some people should just get thicker skin, especially as it sounds like a passing incident. Had this incident been more serious then deal with it accordingly.

Why should people get a thicker skin? I don't think it's a waste of police time at all. It's not acceptable to abuse people in the street over their race, religion or sexuality. Are you saying we should just tolerate these morons because Police resources could be better spent? Does the victim have to wait until they're beaten up before they report a crime? Truly pathetic.

You called him pathetic, time to get the police involved. Does Taskforce 141 have to wait until you beat him up before he reports this crime?

The country is full of people verbally abusing one another in some form. Should that really be a police matter? It would probably be the only matter the police had time to look into, given the sheer scale.

We don't even know what 'homophobic abuse' meant in this story, or whether the victim was even homosexual. For all we know, someone just shouted "Oi, dyke!" at a random stranger for no reason whatsoever. Let's not pretend it's the great train robbery just yet.

Yes it should be a Police matter. You know there's a difference between a hate crime and calling someone pathetic. Also the story says "homophobic insults" so it wasn't just a one off. The police know the detail and felt it should be acted upon. Also it doesn't matter if the victim is gay or not. I honestly don't see the argument why the Police shouldn't investigate this crime because it's not the great train robbery.

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Naturally they have to waste time on any incident where someone's sexuality or faith was targeted.

I think some people should just get thicker skin, especially as it sounds like a passing incident. Had this incident been more serious then deal with it accordingly.

Why should people get a thicker skin? I don't think it's a waste of police time at all. It's not acceptable to abuse people in the street over their race, religion or sexuality. Are you saying we should just tolerate these morons because Police resources could be better spent? Does the victim have to wait until they're beaten up before they report a crime? Truly pathetic.

You called him pathetic, time to get the police involved. Does Taskforce 141 have to wait until you beat him up before he reports this crime?

The country is full of people verbally abusing one another in some form. Should that really be a police matter? It would probably be the only matter the police had time to look into, given the sheer scale.

We don't even know what 'homophobic abuse' meant in this story, or whether the victim was even homosexual. For all we know, someone just shouted "Oi, dyke!" at a random stranger for no reason whatsoever. Let's not pretend it's the great train robbery just yet.

Yes it should be a Police matter. You know there's a difference between a hate crime and calling someone pathetic. Also the story says "homophobic insults" so it wasn't just a one off. The police know the detail and felt it should be acted upon. Also it doesn't matter if the victim is gay or not. I honestly don't see the argument why the Police shouldn't investigate this crime because it's not the great train robbery.

I feel hurt by your comments. I'm calling the police.

Call them, that's your right. Whether they act upon it is up to them. If someone hurls homophobic abuse at me because they *think* I'm gay when I'm out walking my dog, what should I do? Stop walking my dog there? I wouldn't think for a second I was wasting Police time if I reported it and neither should this lady.

userds5050 wrote:
Call them, that's your right. Whether they act upon it is up to them. If someone hurls homophobic abuse at me because they *think* I'm gay when I'm out walking my dog, what should I do? Stop walking my dog there? I wouldn't think for a second I was wasting Police time if I reported it and neither should this lady.

As you've posed the question, do you bat for the other side?

No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

userds5050 wrote:
Call them, that's your right. Whether they act upon it is up to them. If someone hurls homophobic abuse at me because they *think* I'm gay when I'm out walking my dog, what should I do? Stop walking my dog there? I wouldn't think for a second I was wasting Police time if I reported it and neither should this lady.

How about ignoring them? You can do that, you know: ignore childish name-calling. It's actually quite effective.

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

This is a real instance of prejudice though. People ignoring gay people being abused in the street are just as culpable as the folks that didn't speak up when Rosa Parks was forced to give up her seat on the bus. Unless you don't see her problem with standing?

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

This is a real instance of prejudice though. People ignoring gay people being abused in the street are just as culpable as the folks that didn't speak up when Rosa Parks was forced to give up her seat on the bus. Unless you don't see her problem with standing?

Rosa Parks cannot be cited in the same context as a perversion unless I can use the same case to argue for my 'right' to play tiddlywinks on the M27.

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

This is a real instance of prejudice though. People ignoring gay people being abused in the street are just as culpable as the folks that didn't speak up when Rosa Parks was forced to give up her seat on the bus. Unless you don't see her problem with standing?

How do you know it's a real case of prejudice? All we know is, someone used some homophobic language. That alone doesn't constitute prejudice. There isn't even anything to suggest the victim is actually gay, for starters.

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

This is a real instance of prejudice though. People ignoring gay people being abused in the street are just as culpable as the folks that didn't speak up when Rosa Parks was forced to give up her seat on the bus. Unless you don't see her problem with standing?

How do you know it's a real case of prejudice? All we know is, someone used some homophobic language. That alone doesn't constitute prejudice. There isn't even anything to suggest the victim is actually gay, for starters.

So if two straight men were refused a hotel room because the owner mistakenly thought they were gay that wouldn't be an example of prejudice? Oh, and Torchie according to the law it can be cited in the same context.

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

This is a real instance of prejudice though. People ignoring gay people being abused in the street are just as culpable as the folks that didn't speak up when Rosa Parks was forced to give up her seat on the bus. Unless you don't see her problem with standing?

How do you know it's a real case of prejudice? All we know is, someone used some homophobic language. That alone doesn't constitute prejudice. There isn't even anything to suggest the victim is actually gay, for starters.

So if two straight men were refused a hotel room because the owner mistakenly thought they were gay that wouldn't be an example of prejudice? Oh, and Torchie according to the law it can be cited in the same context.

Hotel room? What are you on about? Citing some hypothetical example of prejudice has no bearing on this story whatsoever. Poor attempt.

But to play ball for a moment, yes, that would be prejudice. The hotelier had a belief about their sexuality, and treated them differently as a result. Simply calling someone names isn't remotely the same thing, not even close.

userds5050 wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Naturally they have to waste time on any incident where someone's sexuality or faith was targeted.

I think some people should just get thicker skin, especially as it sounds like a passing incident. Had this incident been more serious then deal with it accordingly.

Why should people get a thicker skin? I don't think it's a waste of police time at all. It's not acceptable to abuse people in the street over their race, religion or sexuality. Are you saying we should just tolerate these morons because Police resources could be better spent? Does the victim have to wait until they're beaten up before they report a crime? Truly pathetic.

Well said I totally agree!

Two guys walking a dog with a pink collar, remind me homophobic abuse to whom?

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

This is a real instance of prejudice though. People ignoring gay people being abused in the street are just as culpable as the folks that didn't speak up when Rosa Parks was forced to give up her seat on the bus. Unless you don't see her problem with standing?

How do you know it's a real case of prejudice? All we know is, someone used some homophobic language. That alone doesn't constitute prejudice. There isn't even anything to suggest the victim is actually gay, for starters.

So if two straight men were refused a hotel room because the owner mistakenly thought they were gay that wouldn't be an example of prejudice? Oh, and Torchie according to the law it can be cited in the same context.

Hotel room? What are you on about? Citing some hypothetical example of prejudice has no bearing on this story whatsoever. Poor attempt.

But to play ball for a moment, yes, that would be prejudice. The hotelier had a belief about their sexuality, and treated them differently as a result. Simply calling someone names isn't remotely the same thing, not even close.

You need to look the word prejudice up before you start spouting it about.
I think it is fair to make the assumption that if someone hurls homophobic abuse at someone in the street they have an unfavorable, unreasonable attitude toward gay people.

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Are the police really wasting time on this?

Naturally they have to waste time on any incident where someone's sexuality or faith was targeted.

I think some people should just get thicker skin, especially as it sounds like a passing incident. Had this incident been more serious then deal with it accordingly.

Why should people get a thicker skin? I don't think it's a waste of police time at all. It's not acceptable to abuse people in the street over their race, religion or sexuality. Are you saying we should just tolerate these morons because Police resources could be better spent? Does the victim have to wait until they're beaten up before they report a crime? Truly pathetic.

You called him pathetic, time to get the police involved. Does Taskforce 141 have to wait until you beat him up before he reports this crime?

The country is full of people verbally abusing one another in some form. Should that really be a police matter? It would probably be the only matter the police had time to look into, given the sheer scale.

We don't even know what 'homophobic abuse' meant in this story, or whether the victim was even homosexual. For all we know, someone just shouted "Oi, dyke!" at a random stranger for no reason whatsoever. Let's not pretend it's the great train robbery just yet.

Well put Georgem.

and just to be clear, i dont think its acceptable to hurl abuse at anyone for no reason.

But what result do you really expect from such a report? The perpetrator will not go before a court, at best he may get a telling off, if they can find him which will take how much time and resources?

Just ignore the thick inbreed idiots of the world if its verbal. If it escalates then its time for action...

Inform Al wrote:
Two guys walking a dog with a pink collar, remind me homophobic abuse to whom?

Yes it is a strange old tale, even before Boris Johnson turned up. I wonder what the dog made of it all?

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

This has nothing to do with gay rights, though. It's a simple matter of one person being nasty to another. The nastiness happens to have been about sexuality, but that's it. People are nasty to one another all the time, I don't see why it should suddenly be treated differently because the abuse was aimed at sexual orientation, religion or race. It makes a mockery of real instances of prejudice.

This is a real instance of prejudice though. People ignoring gay people being abused in the street are just as culpable as the folks that didn't speak up when Rosa Parks was forced to give up her seat on the bus. Unless you don't see her problem with standing?

How do you know it's a real case of prejudice? All we know is, someone used some homophobic language. That alone doesn't constitute prejudice. There isn't even anything to suggest the victim is actually gay, for starters.

So if two straight men were refused a hotel room because the owner mistakenly thought they were gay that wouldn't be an example of prejudice? Oh, and Torchie according to the law it can be cited in the same context.

Hotel room? What are you on about? Citing some hypothetical example of prejudice has no bearing on this story whatsoever. Poor attempt.

But to play ball for a moment, yes, that would be prejudice. The hotelier had a belief about their sexuality, and treated them differently as a result. Simply calling someone names isn't remotely the same thing, not even close.

You need to look the word prejudice up before you start spouting it about.
I think it is fair to make the assumption that if someone hurls homophobic abuse at someone in the street they have an unfavorable, unreasonable attitude toward gay people.

I know what prejudice means, thanks. Just because I don't happen to agree with your views, doesn't mean I don't understand what you're talking about.

userds5050 wrote:
No I don't. Don't see why it's relevant either TBH. I know Georgem likes to play Devil's advocate sometimes to lighten these boards up. So why can't I put the case for the rights of gay people?

Well said... And before anyone asks.. No i'm not either!..

Salvador Dali and a Dalek we're also seen in the park and police are asking them to come forward.

I can see it seems trivial to get the police involved to some. However, none of us were there, we do not know the detail of the circumstances, or how threatening or abusive the situation was, or was perceived to be by the person who suffered it. It may have been the first time this happened, it may not. It sadly requires bravery these days to stand up and involve the police in the face of intimidatory behaviour, and this person should probably be commended for doing so.

I dont agree with criticising the victim for involving the police. All we will achieve by getting more tolerant of anti social behaviour is that the boundaries of what is acceptable will be pushed further and further by the hooligans, when they "test" both members of the public and police for a reaction.

Society would be a much nicer place with more bobbies on the beat, more visible policing, and more action taken against anti social behaviour. So many things go one across our cities which people should not have to tolerate.

It brings to mind the case of Fiona Pilkington who killed herself and her disabled daughter after a decade of unchecked abuse by yobs

As Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"