Hate crime review

[soapbox]

Should cyclists be included as a group that is particularly subject to hate crime, in the review of hate crime legislation? The evidence is overwhelming -on social media, youtube, in conversations in public places and workplaces, and, of course, out there on the roads. People hate cyclists and aren't abashed to state it, and in many cases, use cars and other things as weapons against us.
Should Cycling UK be be campaigning for cyclists to be included?

[landsurfer]

No such thing as a "hate " crime .... all hate crimes are covered by current legislation, its a political, liberal box ticking exercise ... well .. thats my opinion.

[soapbox]

No such thing as a "hate " crime .... all hate crimes are covered by current legislation, its a political, liberal box ticking exercise ... well .. thats my opinion.

I get your point, but it exists legally, and affects sentencing, and I think we all know how lenient sentencing can be when cyclists are killed or injured. It might make the difference between dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention.

[Cyril Haearn]

Yes

'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'
Was that ever true?

I hate and despise motons that endanger me, is that hate crime? Or fear crime?

[landsurfer]

Yes

'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'
Was that ever true?

I have and despise motons that endanger me, is that hate crime? Or fear crime?

Possibly a fear crime ... as motons deliver the food to your shops, the health care consumables to your hospital and the cycling needs to your shops.

[pete75]

No such thing as a "hate " crime .... all hate crimes are covered by current legislation, its a political, liberal box ticking exercise ... well .. thats my opinion.

Not sure. Motive is one of the things that affects sentencing and designating something a hate crime recognises a particularly unpleasant motive in a way most can understand. I guess it's designed to send a message to the likely perpetrators - that's the only valid reason I can think of for the concept.

[Cugel]

No such thing as a "hate " crime .... all hate crimes are covered by current legislation, its a political, liberal box ticking exercise ... well .. thats my opinion.

Hmmm - crimes are traditionally physical - theft, murder. GBH....

Hate crimes are metaphysical - the "words" of "sticks & stones may break my bones but words.....". We used to say, "...will never hurt me". But that's never been true really.

There are the traditional crimes of defamation, libel and so forth. In a way, new hate crimes are an extension of those.

But for a crime to be meaningful as such, there has to be harm. Do hate crimes (speaking and writing hatefully about this or that group or stereotype) cause real harm? Probably, as witnessed by several suicides that have come to public attention (and how many haven't).

What about your "political, liberal box tickers"? There is evidence that enough hate speech can provide the motive and drive for some to perform consequent hateful acts against their pariahs and scapegoats. Moseley marches, or those of the current neo-Nazi rabble rouser in the news, can motive other yobs to do very bad things. And how do you feel about that Choudry bloke and similar?

In the end, crimes are a reflection of fervently felt morality by a large group in a society. There are enough lily-livered liberals about that feel that way about certain degrees of rabble rousing, of whatever political or religious flavour. Hate speech has so often been the precursor of the successful rise of evil regimes with their vast crimes. Personally, I'd arrest Trump for his tweets - for his whole political stance, in fact - which seems extremely dangerous and potentially more harmful than we like to imagine in our worst forebodings about the future.

Cyclist-hating - a crime? Perhaps less formal punishments would be better, such as the sack for those journos who like to encourage motoring yobs to run over those on a bike?

But I suppose old sodjers think being bullied and denigrated, perhaps even beasted in the barracks, is perfectly niice and normal. Makes a man of 'em, eh!

Cugel

[The utility cyclist]

Replace the word 'cyclist' amongst the language used against the people within this group with 'gay', homo, nigger, paki or even women and plod would be on it in a split second, there are swathes of officers, particularly in London trawling the internet for such language. We've seen the outcome of using such language and threat of harm not to mention the harm itself, 'racially motivated' gets an increase in punishment.
Can you imagine the Attorney General getting involved to ask for an unduly lenient sentence to be increased because a cyclist was attacked by someone. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/23/race.world

I've replaced a vital couple of words in the statement given by lord Goldsmith - Lord Goldsmith told Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Crane and Mr Justice Hunt: "Hatred against cyclists remains a cancer in our society. It strikes at the heart of people's right to feel safe and protected by the law"

Except we know this would be utterly unfathomable for anyone to say this not least the AG, it's also unfathomable at this time for an assault against cyclists to be punished as such, no matter to what extremes that can go not just verbally attack but physically attack someone, indeed you can kill a cyclist and go home knowing full well the 'justice' system is on your side because actually not just joe public but police, the government and the justice system/judges are hell bent on punishing people who ride bikes more than others and not defending them according to the law already. We see examples of this injustice every single day by the thousands at all levels*.

They, including judges all act criminally when not applying the law and do so with blatant discrimination toward people who ride bikes, thus is why people bring the subject up about hate crime, or as is rightly pointed out, an assault against the person that is specifically meted out simply because of the group you belong to.

*Would a cyclist riding in an aggressive and reckless manner who killed four pedestrians when losing control get a £180 slap on the wrist and be defended by the Chief Inspector who would tell lies to reporters at the scene, absolutely not. Would a motorist be charged with manslaughter when a pedestrian was in collision with them (note the language of who collided into whom) whilst driving at 18mph, slowing to 10mph and after sounding their horn twice as well as steering away, the pedestrian still ran into the road and directly into their path, particularly when said pedestrian was witnessed to have their phone in their hand?
Would a cyclist who turned left without looking and killed a pedestrian standing just at the side of the road or just crossing the minor road be completely let off? Would a cyclist riding at excessive speed on the wrong side of the road on a 'blind' bend who kills a pedestrian lawfully standing at the side of the road trying to get across be let off after pleading the pedestrian went into them and use the 'I'm a cancer specialist and church goer' as mitigating factors and for the cyclists defence to state that the pedestrian wasn't experienced at walking that road as another mitigating factor, so the cyclist would be let off completely scot-free?

[brooksby]

I think the list of protected groups under 'hate crime' legislation should be expanded (still not sure about Goths, but modern Goths are very different to the ones I knew in my youth...).

I certainly think that some of the Katie f-ing Hopkins style journalists should probably be prosecuted under 'incitement to...' legislation, and the (in)famous Matthew Parris one about lynching cyclists is a real stand-out on that, so perhaps adding to the list of protected characteristics so that any other crime becomes aggravated if you are proven to have a history of being an @rse on social media, for example.

[soapbox]

Replace the word 'cyclist' amongst the language used against the people within this group with 'gay', homo, nigger, paki or even women and plod would be on it in a split second, there are swathes of officers, particularly in London trawling the internet for such language. We've seen the outcome of using such language and threat of harm not to mention the harm itself, 'racially motivated' gets an increase in punishment.
Can you imagine the Attorney General getting involved to ask for an unduly lenient sentence to be increased because a cyclist was attacked by someone. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/23/race.world

I've replaced a vital couple of words in the statement given by lord Goldsmith - Lord Goldsmith told Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Crane and Mr Justice Hunt: "Hatred against cyclists remains a cancer in our society. It strikes at the heart of people's right to feel safe and protected by the law"

Except we know this would be utterly unfathomable for anyone to say this not least the AG, it's also unfathomable at this time for an assault against cyclists to be punished as such, no matter to what extremes that can go not just verbally attack but physically attack someone, indeed you can kill a cyclist and go home knowing full well the 'justice' system is on your side because actually not just joe public but police, the government and the justice system/judges are hell bent on punishing people who ride bikes more than others and not defending them according to the law already. We see examples of this injustice every single day by the thousands at all levels*.

They, including judges all act criminally when not applying the law and do so with blatant discrimination toward people who ride bikes, thus is why people bring the subject up about hate crime, or as is rightly pointed out, an assault against the person that is specifically meted out simply because of the group you belong to.

*Would a cyclist riding in an aggressive and reckless manner who killed four pedestrians when losing control get a £180 slap on the wrist and be defended by the Chief Inspector who would tell lies to reporters at the scene, absolutely not. Would a motorist be charged with manslaughter when a pedestrian was in collision with them (note the language of who collided into whom) whilst driving at 18mph, slowing to 10mph and after sounding their horn twice as well as steering away, the pedestrian still ran into the road and directly into their path, particularly when said pedestrian was witnessed to have their phone in their hand?
Would a cyclist who turned left without looking and killed a pedestrian standing just at the side of the road or just crossing the minor road be completely let off? Would a cyclist riding at excessive speed on the wrong side of the road on a 'blind' bend who kills a pedestrian lawfully standing at the side of the road trying to get across be let off after pleading the pedestrian went into them and use the 'I'm a cancer specialist and church goer' as mitigating factors and for the cyclists defence to state that the pedestrian wasn't experienced at walking that road as another mitigating factor, so the cyclist would be let off completely scot-free?

I enjoyed reading that, (although 'enjoyed' probably isn't the right word) and will use some of the points you make in my debates with... well, just about everyone who doesn't ride a bike.
I don't know about London, but the Lancashire Police Facebook page is inundated with hateful and threatening comments every time they post anything to do with cyclists -people actually post on a police facebook page how much they hate cyclists and how they behave towards them, and get more happy 'likes' than angry emojis; and they do it with impunity.

[soapbox]

I think the list of protected groups under 'hate crime' legislation should be expanded (still not sure about Goths, but modern Goths are very different to the ones I knew in my youth...).

I certainly think that some of the Katie f-ing Hopkins style journalists should probably be prosecuted under 'incitement to...' legislation, and the (in)famous Matthew Parris one about lynching cyclists is a real stand-out on that, so perhaps adding to the list of protected characteristics so that any other crime becomes aggravated if you are proven to have a history of being an @rse on social media, for example.

The Matthew Parris article still rankles and I haven't bought a copy of the Times since. He never did apologise.

[mjr]

The Matthew Parris article still rankles and I haven't bought a copy of the Times since. He never did apologise.

Whereas James Martin did apologise for his boastful road rage about putting cyclists into hedges in the Mail, but I've still avoided watching him or buying anything from either since.

[Cyril Haearn]

One would like to know why Lancashire police publicise hateful texts and do nothing about them

Do they publicise racist or sexist sentiments?

[PH]

I'm not a cyclist, I'm someone who's sometimes on a bike. Where I'm a part of a group that's subject to hate crime, that's who I am not what I do. There is no cyclist group that everyone on a bike belongs to, we're just people who cycle, I can't see how trying to form such a group helps anyone, we should be trying to break down barriers not build them. Doing so would make people attacking us as a group look as daft as they are.

[soapbox]

I'm not a cyclist, I'm someone who's sometimes on a bike. Where I'm a part of a group that's subject to hate crime, that's who I am not what I do. There is no cyclist group that everyone on a bike belongs to, we're just people who cycle, I can't see how trying to form such a group helps anyone, we should be trying to break down barriers not build them. Doing so would make people attacking us as a group look as daft as they are.

The same can be said for any of the other groups covered by hate crime though. If you're riding a bike, you're a cyclist, and could be the victim of a crime where you were targeted partly because you were riding a bike/a cyclist, as a result of someone's irrational, prejudiced views.