Racist Beeps At Black Lady

[Spicerack]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elderly-woman-questioned-police-hate-13535704

Careful who you beep at. Bet the garage CCTV is 'interesting'.

[AuntLydia]

What a waste of Police time.

[andy-hughes]

Clearly the law which allows a situation like this is seriously at fault.

Genuine Hate Crimes are a blot on society, but for any chippy trouble-causing individual to be able to invoke legal process over something like this is clearly not what the law was intended to address.


An adjustment to the process is needed, and it's needed now, to avoid wasting valuable police resources in allowing attention-seeking trouble makers to waste everyone's time.

[spathiphyllum]

"on suspicion of a hate crime."

If the black woman who got "beeped" at found it racist / offensive, then it was exactly that.

[ummmm]

Pathetic.

[SparklyKid]

Utterly ludicrous.

[ummmm]

Spath...are you serious?

[Rockrose]

Depends if there was shouting involved that used certain language.

[-Talbot-]

Troll or idiot or both...I can't make my mind up.

[ludwig]

// If the black woman who got "beeped" at found it racist / offensive, then it was exactly that. //

This is the problem with the law that requires changing. It says racism is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't take a genius to see that's going to lead to problems.

[Spicerack]

I might be a bit of an idiot, Talbot, but troll, come on.

[-Talbot-]

Was I reading an answer or the OP when I typed my reply....

[BANANASPLITS]

*** world has gone mad!

[Spicerack]

Similar to the free speech 'arguments'. If someone feels offended by what you say/write, you can't say it. (even if it's true)

[naomi24]

Groan...

[andy-hughes]

spath - // "on suspicion of a hate crime."

If the black woman who got "beeped" at found it racist / offensive, then it was exactly that. //

You may be playing devil's advocate here, I am not sure.

But the point is, hooting a car horn cannot be construed as a racist act, or indeed a hate crime - for either to exist, there has to be evidence that the horn was hooted because of the ethnicity of the lady in question, and clearly there is no evidence for that, based on what the report says.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // Similar to the free speech 'arguments'. If someone feels offended by what you say/write, you can't say it. (even if it's true) //

That is actually not true.

You can say what you want, but you may be required to defend it, or be prosecuted for it - but you can still say it.

[Spicerack]

^ In the same way you can 'beep' at anyone, then.

[ludwig]

// If the black woman who got "beeped" at found it racist / offensive, then it was exactly that. //

Spath appears to be saying something ridiculous here, and indeed he is, but in actual fact he's just stating the position of the law. The police are obliged to investigate any incident that the accuser defines as being racist. "He looked at me in a way I interpret as racist". "She only beeped at me because I'm black". etc etc.

Ridiculous.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // ^ In the same way you can 'beep' at anyone, then. //

In my view - yes.

Hooting at a lady because she is slow may be rude, but it is not a hate crime.

Hooting at a lady purely because she is black is a hate crime - but there is no evidence that her ethnicity, rather than her dawdling, was the reason she was hooted at.

[andy-hughes]

Ludwig - // Spath appears to be saying something ridiculous here, and indeed he is, but in actual fact he's just stating the position of the law. The police are obliged to investigate any incident that the accuser defines as being racist. "He looked at me in a way I interpret as racist". "She only beeped at me because I'm black". etc etc. //

I absolutely agree - and it is circumstances like this that underline how poorly the law has been worded, and therefore is actioned, and why proper amendment is a matter of urgency in my view.