Sussex Police have asked for a good samaritan to come forward after a woman was verbally abused in Brighton just over a week ago.
The force said: “Police investigating a hate-related public order incident in Brighton are urging witnesses to come forward.
“A woman reported being verbally abused in Western Road, Brighton, close to the junction of Regent Hill, on the afternoon of Saturday 20 July.
“A member of public who assisted the victim is believed to have captured an image of the suspects and officers are urging this person to come forward in order to identify them.
“Report it online or call 101 if you can help, quoting crime reference 47240139574.”
Given the levels of unsolved crime of a more serious nature, does an incident of ‘verbal abuse’ warrant additional police time being used ?
Are you unconcerned by hate-related public order incidents?
Any right minded person should be concerned by this but not to a greater degree than would be the case with other crimes. Do you think that more police resources should be used to try to solve ‘hate crimes’ than other crimes?
What part are you reading that suggests that less time is spent on other hate-relates crimes because of this one?
No part. You have mis-read my comment. I am inferring that more time is likely being spent on so called ‘hate’ crimes than non hate crimes. I am not suggesting that some hate crimes are being given priority other others. I do however, think that giving certain offices the label ‘hate crime’ does seem to attach a dis-proportionate level of importance to them in terms of police resourcing which is somewhat limited.
Verbally abusing a woman is not a hate crime or a hate incident. Women are not on the list of categories of hate crimes or hate incidents.
“ any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.”
https://www.sussex.police.uk/ro/report/hate-crime/information/v1/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/
Women have less protection in law, the use of woman in this article means someone is lying.
Of course it could be a hate crime. The very statement you have posted suggests that it would be a hate crime if this woman was being verbally abused because of her race, because of her religion, because of her sexual orientation, because of her disability or because of her gender reassignment status. I don’t know what motivates you to suggest that someone is lying here or what you are implying by referring to “the use of woman in this article”.
This site is infested with transphobes who descend on any vaguely gender-related story to have a pop. The site admin do nothing.
I’ve noticed that too.
The comments section frequently turns into a transphobic echo chamber, it’s really starting to make me doubt the quality of the site and its news. Basically starting to feel like the argus II!
I struggle with name calling. Words like transphobes and terfs. I prefer comments that engage with the substance rather than trying to take down the person making the comment. If I were to emulate Some Guy and A different guy, I might suggest they’d be better off sticking to the Argus. They seem more their type. This newspaper has reported gender issues fairly and has given voice to different sides of the debate, above and below the comment line. It’s a shame the likes of Some Guy and A different voice choose sniping and abuse instead of reason and rational debate.
Well said Lola. I prefer a reasoned and amicable discourse in our debates as well. Although, people may hold other views and wish to express them in the ways as you described. Of course they should be allowed to say what they want, but, none of us have to agree or engage with it, such is the beauty of the internet.
The “reasoned debate” ive seen here recently usually boils down to chanting “man,man,man” and other namecalling. (A recent example of this by andrew davis can be seen here: https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/07/24/brighton-woman-70-appears-before-court-charged-with-murdering-husband/ )
I understand that that me calling people transphobes could be seen as being just as bad but there is a difference between someone living life as a vulnerable minority compared to those who go out of their way to attack others they don’t understand.
The issue i had was with the admins not cracking down on purely hateful comments, leaving the door open to very toxic keyboard gangsters.
Chants of man, man, man are just as bad as your name-calling in my book. Neither approach deals with what really seems to be at issue here, the competing rights of different groups. I’m really not sure excessive moderating is the answer, not least because a modicum of self-moderation would be preferable.
Hi Lola, thanks for the differing viewpoint. There isn’t really a debate with two sides. There are trans people and people victimising them. All the fake-feminist rhetoric is just cloaking hatred behind otherwise noble causes. Hope this helps.
It seems Some Guy is incapable of seeing anyone else’s point of view. I agree this isn’t a debate with two sides, there are more perspectives than two. To dismiss the concerns of some women as fake feminist shows a distinct lack of understanding, empathy or sympathy. Some Guy talks of hatred. Projecting perhaps!
I freely admit I know very few people who are trans, but of those I know, with one exception, they live low-key lives and have no truck with campaigns and rhetoric although they, of course, want the right to live their lives as they choose and to be treated with dignity and respect.
Sometimes, women’s rights may trump trans rights when the two conflict. Elite sport is a case in point.
Sadly, there seem to be a small number in women’s prisons who have perpetrated abuse and violence, like Isla Bryson, Karen White and Jessica Winfield.
They may be exceptions, but it is because of the exceptional offenders and transgressors in society that we have safeguarding rules to protect the vulnerable, whether they are children, the elderly, women, those with learning disabilities or other.
Some Guy’s failed attempt at a patronising putdown only exposes the hollow extremism which is all-too common in this polarised debate.
The article quotes Sussex Police:
“Police investigating a hate-related public order incident“.
So yes, this is being treated as either a hate crime (if another crime has been committed), or as a hate incident if not.
This article stands out from others that present a hate crime/incident based on race and religion (disability is never reported and neither is sexual orientation these days). This article outlines a scenario that can only exist if the victim here is male. This is because there is no hate crime/incident category that covers sex or female, plus the word Gender is not being used according to British English (Gender is the state of being male or female).
The point here is this is another example where a trusted media outlet along with Sussex Police are publishing content that is confusing and unclear. It’s breaking down public trust in their credibility and authority, that’s really not a good thing to be doing. If nothing else it makes Internet individuals a better source of truth.
I hope the individual concerned is OK.
Does little or no understanding of the circumstances permit you to pontificate with such certainty?
If, however, you have a deeper understanding of this incident and you are at liberty to educate us all, please do so.
There are certainly those who would presume so, most definitely Gabe.
It must not be one of those old fashioned women, the ones with a womb. It’ll be one with an Adam’s apple.
.
Ahem – title is “hate related” it does not say “hate crime” – clickbait ?