[BeckyBoop]

Henkel.Trocken for a “Change Management Consulatant” you never seem to have any thing positive to say. Are you sure you are not a Risk Manager by any chance? and talk rubbish and rarely seem to add anything constructive to say. I have met lots of management consaltants in my job and you are just giving them a bad name. You really are full * it *, please shut up and clear off.

Ian i am not sure what the exact charge is called but this is clearly a hate crime and the same leauge as that women on the Croydon tram last year. This guy is clearly racist he just never knew it and now cant beleive it.

[LuganoPirate]

I’m afraid Becky I have to agree with Ian. The simple truth of the matter is Dave Jones committed no offense! The offense was committed by the security official.

[BeckyBoop]

LP hun please read my comment which came in just before you posted this (11:59)

“i am not sure what the exact charge is called but this is clearly a hate crime and the same leauge as that women on the Croydon tram last year.”

So is this woman innocent/ not guilty?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/883142-woman-34-charged-over-racist-rant-on-my-tram-experience-video

[NTarrant]

Becky, there is a difference between a “rant” and an off the cuff comment, which essentially was a question. What makes you think this is a hate crime? What evidence do you have to support that comment?

[IanFromHKG]

Becky, let me help you out here. According to the article you cited, the women in Croydon was charged with a racially aggravated offence (specifically, racially aggravated harrassment, but I am going to set out the other alternatives here as well). That requires that the perpetrator :

* At the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, … demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group;
* Or the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group.

I didn’t see either of those elements in Mr Jones’s actions as reported, particularly since his comments were not aimed at the Muslim worker, but we can agree to disagree on that if you wish. However, you need to remember that there also has to be an underlying offence for the racial aggravation to attach to. These are assault, criminal damage, harassment and public order offences. I think we can dismiss the first two out of hand. The others are:

Harassment :
* harassment (Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997)
* intimidation – putting people in fear of violence (Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997)
* racially aggravated harassment (Section 32(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998)

Public Order offences
* fear or provocation of violence (Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986)
* intentional harassment, alarm or distress (Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986)
* harassment, alarm or distress (Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986)

There you go. I have done the research for you. Now please identify PRECISELY which offence you think Mr Jones should be charged with

Please also answer my second question, which you have conveniently ignored

[BeckyBoop]

Ian and Ntarrant, thanks for the info. Sorry i didnt think i avoided the question i am no expert in these things but all i know its classified as a Hate crime. He should of been done for all of them (harrassement and pulic order)…It was an offensive comment!?!? He should of checked that nobody was with in ear shot when he made the comment. this could of turned nasty esp being in a place where people of all nationalities are. He should be banged up and charged as and made an example of causing public hatred we have enough problems with racism in this country as it. This happens at football games almost all the time so John Terry and Luis Suarez are also innocent? have i now answered it if not i may of misuderstood the question again.

[NTarrant]

Becky, I fail to see where you are coming from and I am sure that Ian will agree. Do you really think a comment, I assume you have read the article to know what the comment was, made is a hate crime? You still avoid the question as to how such a comment is a hate crime.

However, you then contradict yourself by saying that he should have checked no one was in earshot when he made the comment, so essentially you are saying that it is not a hate crime if it is not made in earshot?

Henkel, you are 100% correct in your observation!

[BeckyBoop]

NTarrant & Ian, people are free to have there personal opinions about whatever. However there are times and places when things should be said. Like i said at the start i am sure there is more to this story than what we know. I would of thought that this would of been at the very least a racially aggravated harassment?.. now have i covered it?

[MartynSinclair]

“i am sure there is more to this story than what we know”

Rather than bombard BB on a losing battle – what a shame that there has been no comment fron the other side of this situation.

It would be interesting to get the other side, I know Rich has provided an opposing view, but a comment from Gatwick, even through BT would perhaps provide more understanding of the situation.

[IanFromHKG]

Becky, the way I see it, Mr Jones was querying whether it was acceptable for someone to go through a security checkpoint with their face completely covered. I think that is a legitimate concern, albeit perhaps not a well-informed one since (as others on this thread have pointed out) identity is only really a problem for immigration purposes rather than security. Having said that, people are required to remove jackets and sweaters for security – why not something that covers their face?

I just don[t see how you can conclude that Mr Jones was motivated by racial hatred (or hatred of any other kind). What he was asking was whether he was entitled to equal treatment with a Muslim woman. I think his remark was ill-advised, but I don’t think he was disparaging Islam. Apparently, however, you have concluded that his query amounts to a hate crime. I just don’t get that. What I do get, however, is that :

* Someone in a position of power decided to take offence at the remark
* They used that power to try to force an apology
* In doing so, they intimidated the person in question, detained him against his will, and used threats against him

And yet you regard his query as being the conduct that merits criminal sanction? Sorry, but again, I just don’t get it, and I still can’t see why you believe Mr Jones should be the one being prosecuted. You have said he should be prosecuted for “all of them” – presumably meaning all six of the crimes I listed. In the words of Mr McEnroe, “You can NOT be serious!”. Really, please, identify just one of those offences that you think could be made to stick in a criminal court, and I will explain why it won’t. Just one….

[NTarrant]

How very tactful Martyn. I would agree that a comment from LGW would be interesting, whether they support the staff or not.

[MartynSinclair]

We are all treading on egg shells here.

Why was quesiton by Mr Jones, was “ill advised”?

[IanFromHKG]

Becky, I think I was typing my last post when you made your latest comment, so I had not seen it when I pressed the “Save” button. You say it was racially aggravated harrassment. This is from the Home Office website:

QUOTE
To obtain a conviction for criminal harassment the prosecution needs to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the three elements of harassment:
•the defendant has pursued a course of conduct
•the course of conduct amounted to harassment of another person
•the defendant knew or ought to have known that the course of conduct amounted to harassment.
Harassment is defined as causing alarm or causing distress and a course of conduct which can include speech must involve conduct on at least 2 occasions. The incidents do not have to be the same type of behaviour on both occasions.
UNQUOTE

It was a one-off remark, ergo no course of conduct, ergo no harrassment, ergo no grounds for prosecution let alone conviction

Sorry, Becky, you are indeed entitled to your own personal opinion about the correctness of Mr Jones’s conduct, but when you assert that he is a criminal who should be prosecuted for a hate crime,you are WRONG

[Henkel.Trocken]

BeckyBoop: Not for the first time you have become abusive when challenged and you do not seem to be able to justify the points you choose to make as others are pointing out.

Yes, a Change Management Consultant and my professional background to that is HR management and a masters degree in behavioural psychology.

I don’t often choose to think in terms of professional ability outside work but something about you BeckyBoop does not and never has added up.

[BeckyBoop]

Ian, are you lawyer? There is definatley something else behind all this that we dont know, i cant think why else the security would of detained him. In the words of Mr Rowberry “i think he will have to agree to disagree on this one” (it might be the other way round)

Martyn great suggestion.

All, sorry i didnt realise i was wrong to have a differnt view from the rest of you.

[Author]

Posts