Ye that’s how I feel..
I just read the bit ‘life changing burn injuries to the face’ and my palms broke out in a sweat for him…
Totally speechless …
After such a good start by Leicestershire Police yesterday …
Duh, two gay men in a gay pub get doused in a flammable liquid set afire and the police aren’t treating this as homophobic. What was it? This was no simple assault. This was a horrific planned attack.
Were they actually IN the pub or just outside the pub? I don’t think it’s clear. I wonder if this story is being covered in better detail elsewhere?
But either way, it seems extraordinary that the police are saying there is no reason to assume this horrific attack was homophobic.
After the recent riots, it’s clear we have somehow spawned a considerable number of true devils in this land. It’s seriously frightening.
May or may not have been a planned attack …
I guess there is a small chance it is not homophobic – but an attack of this nature in a gay bar tends to suggest homophobia as a strong likelihood …
Unless Leicestershire Police have clear evidence they are not releasing to the public that demonstrates that this assault was not homophobic, then I feel they are being very premature in dismissing or down playing the potential homophobic nature of the incident
In the UK, crime and criminal law is based on the principle of ‘mens rea’. Ultimately that means ‘guilty intention’ as translated into modern criminal law from the latin. It is up to the police to ‘prove’ mens rea before someone can be charged with a crime. What you are suggesting is that, in this case, mens rea should be altered in order that ‘guilty intention’ should be homophobic until proven otherwise.
The police are confined by the law. They are required by ‘proof’ to establish facts and nothing else. They cannot claim things based on ‘probability’. Criminal Law has to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ so why should the police base anything on mere supposition?
As a lawyer of 20 years, I believe the police require to remain impartial, open to all possibility and report ‘the facts’ once they have been established. The police are NOT judge and jury. Leave that to the courts.
On the whole (you may be surprised to hear) I agree with you …
I certainly acknowledge that whilst actus rea in this case would suggest a crime (perhaps section 18/20 of the offences against the person?) and that mens rea is for police to prove (often through interview, but maybe through alternative evidence) and then decide, in consultation with the CPS, what the appropriate charge is …
It is also imperative and key to good natural justice that investigators (in this case the police) keep an open mind to all possibilities and explore wherever the evidence may take them …
That said, there is a huge difference between what is charged (possibly the point you would perhaps be involved in the process) and what happens prior to this …
An investigation can be informed of perceptions which may cause the investigators to consider justifiable leads they may not have otherwise considered. No one is asking (in the case of hate crime) for legal claim of probability in a …
… case. In the interests of justice and good jursiprudence there must be evidence to pursue a case in court, if that charge is to be sustained. There does not need to be evidence to push an investigator in a particular direction, the investigator has to consider what, where, why, who, when, how for each fact that they can determine. The detailed investigation of these facts may include following an investigators gut feeling and instinct from years of established detective experience. That is no different to accepting a perception that a case may be a hate crime.
The investigation may consider something is a hate crime and then discover overwhelming evidence that it is not. The recorded crime can then be altered and the charge made appropriately.
Its no different from when police perceive an assault to be section 18 and then the evidence is only sufficient to charge section 20. The investigation (in that scenario) is informed by a perception that the crime is intentional, …
… but the evidence shows (or can only prove) that an assault occurred with significant injury and not the necessary intention to cause such a level of injury. Perception is used in the investigation but not in the charge.
PinkPaper.com is more informative. It reports: “Police said inquiries were at an early stage but they believe a fire was lit in the beer garden of the Rainbow and Dove pub, the BBC report.”
I just don’t get all this vitriol against the rozzers – they are doing what they are supposed to do, which is keep an open mind during the investigation. Unless there is evidence that the attack was homophobic in nature, they are perfectly correct to state that “it does not appear to be homophobically motivated”. That is the correct language – at the moment, there is no evidence to suggest it’s a homophobic crime, so they are not treating it as such. If evidence comes to light indicating it is homophobic, then it can be taken into account.
Just because the attack is against gay does not make it homophobic – is every attack by men against women fuelled by sexism? Is every attack against a person of a different nationality to the attacker fuelled by racism? Of course not.
Until there is other evidence I will treat this as what it currently appears to be – a horrific and frightening assault on two men, who happen to be gay.
Yes, every attack against women by men IS fueled by sexism. What a silly question. The assumption is that a woman won’t rear up on her hind legs and kick her attackers’ ass because women have less upper body strength and are generally not raised to fight toe-to-toe with men. So yeah, when a man hits a woman, it’s always sexist, because he generally wouldn’t have physically assaulted a dude for the same reasons as he would physically assault a woman. Generally men hit women because they feel that they are not being submissive enough, and can easily be physically punished for that.
Thats total rubbish!
Kindly tell that to my father who was assaulted by his now ex-wife whilst in bed – he woke up to find her straddling him and I quote “trying to rip my nuts off”. He had to hit her once to get her off him, grabbed his phone and locked himself in the en-suite so that the incident wouldn’t escalate until the police could arrive. Was that sexism on his part?
You, sir, are an ass.
‘You Sir, are an ass’…
Don’t assume ‘Friday Jones’ is a man. I haven’t.
To challenge Friday I’ll just ask if men are more lkely to hit women than other men, how come the streets of britain are full of lagered up guys knocking seven bells out of each other every Friday and Saturday night? yes, of course some men hit women, but many have absolutely no problem hitting other guys. To suggest that every attack on a woman by a man is sexist is daft. There’s no proof and never will be for such a sweepinbg generalisation.
True enough, I just used the phrase because it is just that – a phrase “you, person, are an ass” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
As you point out, many men seem to spend plenty of time hitting each other. Quite what they get out it I don’t know…
OMFG, the victim was really good-looking before the attack, too:
The victim’s name is Russel Banks.
Have you read the comments on that article?
Daily Mail readers never fail to disturb me.
Written by assholes read by morons….even the Budgie doesn’t want it lining the cage.
I just read the comments on that article in the Daily Mail. They are utterly disgusting! I always knew that readers of that paper tended towards homophobia but I’ve been taken aback by just how bad they are. There seem to be so many people now who are filled with hate for anyone who does not fit the exact same mold as them. Doesn’t anyone have any compassion anymore?
Just read ALL the comments on that ‘Daily Fail’ article.
Most are actually in support of the two victims. The sad thing is that all the comments in support have been given the ‘thumbs down’ by sickos who seem to be supporters of the psycho who set those two poor guys alight!
I would urge you all to go to the article, read all the comments properly and then click on the appropriate arrow. Get the sympathetic comments upgraded.
These people are behind the anti-gay movement. Take a look at how far they are willing to go to blame gays for their own acts of hate against the poor hungry people. They have lost their minds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/catholic-church-threatens_b_355127.html
From reading all about this story i have came to the conclusion that it was a homophobic attack. Attacks like this make me sick to the stomach, homophobic or not!
Hey guys, like Russel I also work at the rainbow and dove. There will be a vigil on friday at 9:00 (thats 28/10/2011) for russel and robert and against hate crime in general. I would really appreciate it if as many of you as possible would come to show your support. It would really mean a lot to them. Thank you.
Information about the candlelight vigil can be found on this facebook link:
I’m not so sure that a candlelight vigil is the appropriate response to a burning.
My thoughts exactly FJ.
So good to find that a considerable number of gays and lesbians are making Comments on the Daily Mail website to help correct the hateful imbalance that usually arises there.
I hope they find this bastard and he dies. One less piece of homophobic scum.
A very sick individual who I hope is found and locked away for a Very long time.