Wolves Fan Banned for Mocking Supporters

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

Can you please tell me which part of my statement you think is wrong, then I can respond accordingly. Thanks.

It does matter who the abuse is aimed at. In order to be considered a hate crime, the recipient (Mike Dean) must perceive himself to be gay (homophobic abuse).

I'm fairly certain Mike Dean doesn't perceive himself that way...

When the racial abuse goes to trial, it should be considered a hate crime as the abuse directed at Rio was racist and I'm pretty sure he perceives himself as mixed race, which "qualifies" him.

 

[Focke Wolf]

It does matter who the abuse is aimed at. In order to be considered a hate crime, the recipient (Mike Dean) must perceive himself to be gay (homophobic abuse).

I'm fairly certain Mike Dean doesn't perceive himself that way...

When the racial abuse goes to trial, it should be considered a hate crime as the abuse directed at Rio was racist and I'm pretty sure he perceives himself as mixed race, which "qualifies" him.

From CPS Website:

Hate Crime;

‘Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.’

The first sentence is relevant to what I was trying to tell you.

As above.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

As above.

Who exactly is perceiving hostility based on Mike Dean's homosexuality?

It would mean people in the crowd thinking "that's well out of order because Mike Dean IS gay".

 

[Focke Wolf]

Who exactly is perceiving hostility based on Mike Dean's homosexuality?

It would mean people in the crowd thinking "that's well out of order because Mike Dean IS gay".

As I’ve mentioned, anybody can take offence to a comment made which is within the hate crime spectrum. So if somebody from the North Bank makes a homophobic comment and somebody in the Steve Bull hears it, they can make a complaint. You don’t need to be connected to either party, the recipient of the comment or the giver of it. A good example of that a few years ago would be the John Terry / Anton Ferdinand incident where Terry was alleged to have racially abused him. It was a member of the public who complained about the incident which sparked the enquiry by the Fulham Police. I hope that helps explain things.

 

[RedFlagWolf]

As above.

Focke... you stated from....

From CPS Website:

Hate Crime;

‘Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.’

The first sentence is relevant to what I was trying to tell you.

To be clear, I am no expert in civil court claims, but similar phraseology is applied to employment law and merit assessments undertaken accordingly. (For note the bar of burden of proof in Tribunal Claims is widely held to be lower as they do not have to demonstrate 'beyond reasonable doubt' instead using the test of 'probabilities'.)

Using this lower test, the first sentence would require that either the victim was impacted by the hostility or prejudice against their protected characteristic, or any other person reasonably believed that they were adversely impacted by the hostility or prejudice against the recipients protected characteristic.

If the recipient was not covered by the equality act (either directly or indirectly) then any claim is likely to fail.

It is probably for this reason that it has been determined at the lower court as it would in all likelihood be viewed that Mr Dean was not directly (and I'm surmising not indirectly) covered by the Equality Act. (Therefore not a hate crime).

The upcoming case, yet to be determined, I suspect will be viewed very differently as I would suspect it will be reasonably assumed that the offender knew Rio Ferdinand would have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and the act breached.

 

[Focke Wolf]

Focke... you stated from....

From CPS Website:

Hate Crime;

‘Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.’

The first sentence is relevant to what I was trying to tell you.

To be clear, I am no expert in civil court claims, but similar phraseology is applied to employment law and merit assessments undertaken accordingly. (For note the bar of burden of proof in Tribunal Claims is widely held to be lower as they do not have to demonstrate 'beyond reasonable doubt' instead using the test of 'probabilities'.)

Using this lower test, the first sentence would require that either the victim was impacted by the hostility or prejudice against their protected characteristic, or any other person reasonably believed that they were adversely impacted by the hostility or prejudice against the recipients protected characteristic.

If the recipient was not covered by the equality act (either directly or indirectly) then any claim is likely to fail.

It is probably for this reason that it has been determined at the lower court as it would in all likelihood be viewed that Mr Dean was not directly (and I'm surmising not indirectly) covered by the Equality Act. (Therefore not a hate crime).

The upcoming case, yet to be determined, I suspect will be viewed very differently as I would suspect it will be reasonably assumed that the offender knew Rio Ferdinand would have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and the act breached

Maybe I’m missing something here, but my understanding of the incident is that the offender was convicted by a District Judge at Walsall Magistrates Court for ‘Disorderley behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress,’ after two independent witnesses came forward and gave evidence. Therefore the District Judge must have felt that the criminal case was proved beyond all reasonable doubt with the higher burden of proof demanded by a criminal conviction. I don’t think it has anything to do with civil claims or employment law. My original point to Bill Preston was that anybody can take offence to hate crime which this case is a good example of really. I hope that helps.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

As I’ve mentioned, anybody can take offence to a comment made which is within the hate crime spectrum. So if somebody from the North Bank makes a homophobic comment and somebody in the Steve Bull hears it, they can make a complaint. You don’t need to be connected to either party, the recipient of the comment or the giver of it. A good example of that a few years ago would be the John Terry / Anton Ferdinand incident where Terry was alleged to have racially abused him. It was a member of the public who complained about the incident which sparked the enquiry by the Fulham Police. I hope that helps explain things.

The nature of this offence is NOT A HATE CRIME. I'm not disputing that a crime has been reported or committed. I've stated this is NOT A HATE CRIME, and it would appear the Police, the court and the law agree with me...

We are discussing an individual who has been tried and convicted of a public order offence and NOT A HATE CRIME, and there's a good reason for that.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

Maybe I’m missing something here, but my understanding of the incident is that the offender was convicted by a District Judge at Walsall Magistrates Court for ‘Disorderley behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress,’ after two independent witnesses came forward and gave evidence. Therefore the District Judge must have felt that the criminal case was proved beyond all reasonable doubt with the higher burden of proof demanded by a criminal conviction. I don’t think it has anything to do with civil claims or employment law. My original point to Bill Preston was that anybody can take offence to hate crime which this case is a good example of really. I hope that helps.

Anyone is free to be offended by anything, they're free to report any incident they so wish. Doesn't make it a hate crime though.

 

[RedFlagWolf]

Maybe I’m missing something here, but my understanding of the incident is that the offender was convicted by a District Judge at Walsall Magistrates Court for ‘Disorderley behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress,’ after two independent witnesses came forward and gave evidence. Therefore the District Judge must have felt that the criminal case was proved beyond all reasonable doubt with the higher burden of proof demanded by a criminal conviction. I don’t think it has anything to do with civil claims or employment law. My original point to Bill Preston was that anybody can take offence to hate crime which this case is a good example of really. I hope that helps.

Indeed so, criminal conviction.....but not a hate crime.

 

[RedFlagWolf]

The nature of this offence is NOT A HATE CRIME. I'm not disputing that a crime has been reported or committed. I've stated this is NOT A HATE CRIME, and it would appear the Police, the court and the law agree with me...

We are discussing an individual who has been tried and convicted of a public order offence and NOT A HATE CRIME, and there's a good reason for that.

^^^^^What he said!^^^^^^

 

[WasStefan]

I disagree with the general 'life ban' sentiment. Yes it's emotive, but many people deserve a chance to make amends. I'd rather he educated himself, and spoke to a few victims (myself being one, though not from this incident). I see no gain in further alienating someone who possibly on some level feels alienated already.

If he's a genuine a/h however, then yeah, **** him.

Agreed.

 

[optimuswolf]

No stones aimed, meant or implied from me! And certainly no verbal righteousness either! It was just an observation that some words have more history to them than is always known, with “cretin” being a good example.

I was brung up in a similar context to others on here no doubt, with words like spastic / spazzer / flid / cripple etc etc commonplace. I’d personally - other opinions are available - think of the word “cretin” as sitting in with those.

I genuinely didn't know that cretin had any connotations - i do now.

 

[Focke Wolf]

The nature of this offence is NOT A HATE CRIME. I'm not disputing that a crime has been reported or committed. I've stated this is NOT A HATE CRIME, and it would appear the Police, the court and the law agree with me...

We are discussing an individual who has been tried and convicted of a public order offence and NOT A HATE CRIME, and there's a good reason for that.

I’m not going to get drawn into some long debate on this. There are no specific homophobic charge related crimes… BUT… ‘ any criminal offence can be a hate crime if the offender targeted you because of prejudice.’ I’m unsure exactly what was said by the offender but I’m assuming it had an homophobic slant to it. As mentioned earlier in the definition of hate crime a third party can take offence to it. Threatening and Abusive Words or Behaviour is dealt with under the Public Order Act 1986 and is a crime. Draw your own conclusions. At least we can agree that he got what he deserved.

And West Midlands Police have released a statement on their website saying that it was investigated as a hate crime so how do they agree with you ? Statement from the hate crime officer who investigated the offence.

“ My role is to investigate any report of hate crime and that includes discrimination relating to Sexual Orientation and Disability. We won’t tolerate any type of hate crime and will always fully investigate and pursue punishment against offenders.”

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

I’m not going to get drawn into some long debate on this. There are no specific homophobic charge related crimes… BUT… ‘ any criminal offence can be a hate crime if the offender targeted you because of prejudice.’ I’m unsure exactly what was said by the offender but I’m assuming it had an homophobic slant to it. As mentioned earlier in the definition of hate crime a third party can take offence to it. Threatening and Abusive Words or Behaviour is dealt with under the Public Order Act 1986 and is a crime. Draw your own conclusions. At least we can agree that he got what he deserved.

I think he's about to get what he deserves. I'm assuming the punishment for doing monkey noises at Rio will be far more severe. I hope so anyway.

I feel abuse that can be deemed a hate crime can only be so in context. Homophobic abuse out of context (to a heterosexual) is just empty words without real venom.

I can only imagine this is the logic applied by the prosecution/defence.

 

[Golden Oldie]

What chance the description of 'hate crime' simply over emphasises the problem, thus automatically exaggerating the penalty?
Of course, those who feel most aggrieved will argue against that, but we all know that in any conflict words are a lesser evil than actions.
Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.
I suggest in the longer term that will prove to be the case, but for now injured pride will be held more important than broken bodies, even death. We'll have to live with that for now, but, I suggest, not forever.