Is this a public order offence?

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:17 am

Racist man on the London Underground - YouTube

The question, "Is this a public order offence?", relates to the law in England. The clip is from this week on the Bakerloo line.

Language like that in a confined train, directed at a Japanese female passenger who can't escape the verbal assault? How can it possibly not be a public order offence.

Is it racially aggravated? How can it possibly not be racially aggravated.

Should it be a criminal matter?

The clip is reported at, for example, Man arrested after footage of racist Tube train rant is posted on YouTube - Crime - UK - The Independent

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:13 pm

I'm not sure about this . I was watching his hands as he spoke . I'm not sure he's on the same planet as the rest of us.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:20 pm

The guy was being a ********.

Is that against the law in the UK?

Should it be?

I think that if the target of his attack wished to press charges, she would be justified.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:46 pm

I don't think verbal assault should be an offence. We'd have to make a citizens arrest of police during some of their arrests.

But I think the fact that she couldn't leave the situation should be factored in.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:54 pm

LarsMac;1438278 wrote: The guy was being a ********.

Is that against the law in the UK?

Should it be?

I think that if the target of his attack wished to press charges, she would be justified.

The law in England is that committing a public disorder is a crime. There's a useful table at Public Order Offences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service showing the parts of English law relating to

using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing fear of or provoking violence

using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour intending to and causing harassment, alarm or distress

using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress

drunk and disorderly behaviour
to decide whether an act is public disorder or not.

The law also says that if an act proves to be public disorder when prosecuted successfully in court, and it is also shown to include a racial aspect, the sentencing will be proportionately harsher.

The same page also shows additional public order offences which are only possible in a setting of racial hatred. Those don't apply in this instance.

Should the law be as it is in England? People here have different opinions on that. Speaking for myself, I'm not perturbed by the law as it stands. I'm aware that the law in different countries has more or less overlap, sometimes none at all.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:56 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1438286 wrote: I don't think verbal assault should be an offence. We'd have to make a citizens arrest of police during some of their arrests.

But I think the fact that she couldn't leave the situation should be factored in.

Verbal assault isn't an offence in England either. "Likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" is the criminal element, or alternatively "causing fear of or provoking violence". Was the Japanese woman likely to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:00 pm

I would say then, yes, he definitely met the criteria.

Too bad there is not a provision for citizens to give a guy like that a smack when such things occur.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:03 pm

LarsMac;1438291 wrote: Too bad there is not a provision for citizens to give a guy like that a smack when such things occur.

Not at all. A smack clouds the issue of fault. A court sentence nails the bugger in a completely public setting with no doubt as to who was responsible.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:28 pm

I have great reservations with people filming this kind of behaviour like it's the norm . (once it hits the internet and sensationalized, that's how people see it.) Then people feel there should be pressure put on to the law.

I've seen too many comments about these vids like they are ashamed to be British, ashamed to be white, ashamed of this and that. Fact is this individual is never in control. The faces pulled by the other's on the train, the man across from him, whom he backs down from. The woman standing protectively over the Japanese woman. This woman was never in any real danger.

There are some very unpleasant people in our societies. I feel we are too quick to hang them, to somewhat buffer ourselves from anything unpleasant. Why isn't this put down to an unpleasant experience? Why bring the law in?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:33 pm

Týr;1438293 wrote: Not at all. A smack clouds the issue of fault. A court sentence nails the bugger in a completely public setting with no doubt as to who was responsible.

The guy was drunk and suffered a moment of stupidity.

All I can say is that I am glad nobody had cell phones back in the day when I was doing my serious drinking.

I got in enough trouble as it was.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:36 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1438297 wrote: I have great reservations with people filming this kind of behaviour like it's the norm . (once it hits the internet and sensationalized, that's how people see it.) Then people feel there should be pressure put on to the law.

I've seen too many comments about these vids like they are ashamed to be British, ashamed to be white, ashamed of this and that. Fact is this individual is never in control. The faces pulled by the other's on the train, the man across from him, whom he backs down from. The woman standing protectively over the Japanese woman. This woman was never in any real danger.

There are some very unpleasant people in our societies. I feel we are too quick to hang them, to somewhat buffer ourselves from anything unpleasant. Why isn't this put down to an unpleasant experience? Why bring the law in?

I have to agree. I tend to lean towards protecting free speech, no matter how difficult that becomes, some times.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:37 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1438297 wrote: This woman was never in any real danger.The test is whether the Japanese woman was likely to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed, in the opinion of the court, not whether she was in any real danger. The law takes the position that people shouldn't be made to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed in a public setting by a total stranger. I agree they shouldn't. Why should society allow antisocial gits to take their problems out on strangers in public that way.

As for the filming, the sooner every moment that every person spends in public is filmed as a matter of course the better. People will behave if they know for a fact that they'll be in court if they let loose. I include the police in that, too.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:53 pm

Týr;1438303 wrote: The test is whether the Japanese woman was likely to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed, in the opinion of the court, not whether she was in any real danger. The law takes the position that people shouldn't be made to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed in a public setting by a total stranger. I agree they shouldn't. Why should society allow antisocial gits to take their problems out on strangers in public that way.

As for the filming, the sooner every moment that every person spends in public is filmed as a matter of course the better. People will behave if they know for a fact that they'll be in court if they let loose. I include the police in that, too.Taken a step further, that sounds like it could be an endorsement for the death penalty too. I'm surprised to see you make such a generalized statement.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:58 pm

Ahso!;1438304 wrote: Taken a step further, that sounds like it could be an endorsement for the death penalty too. I'm surprised to see you make such a generalized statement.

It has nothing to do with the death penalty. A nation-state ordering the death of anyone at all is immoral and unsupportable, whether it's civilian or military, deliberate execution or careless collateral. Whatever you saw in my post that sounded like it could be an endorsement for the death penalty was a misinterpretation on your part.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:01 pm

Týr;1438306 wrote: It has nothing to do with the death penalty. A nation-state ordering the death of anyone at all is immoral and unsupportable, whether it's civilian or military, deliberate execution or careless collateral. Whatever you saw in my post that sounded like it could be an endorsement for the death penalty was a misinterpretation on your part.The idea of scaring people into proper behavior.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:10 pm

Ahso!;1438308 wrote: The idea of scaring people into proper behavior.

Where's the scaring? A guarantee that an offence will be recorded on film doesn't scare, it prevents. I'm not scared to do it, I'm deterred from doing it by the knowledge that I'll be easy to identify and easy to convict and that I can no longer rely on the current ineptitude of the police failing to detect me.

What happens after conviction is another matter entirely. I suggest that if the number of crimes drops to a trickle because people know the filming would lead to their prosecution, the few remaining sentences could focus entirely on rehabilitating the offender. Killing the offender isn't an option under any circumstances, it would be unethical. Rehabilitation needn't be unpleasant either.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:30 pm

I fully understand what it is you meant from the beginning. It's the idea of a deterrent that surprised me.

I watched a movie last night about the Iceman Murderer from the 60s to the 80s in the New York and New Jersey areas. What jumped out at me throughout the movie was how easy it was to murder others in the open due to the lack of surveillance. Now, thirteen years into the twenty-first century it's scantly remote that a person such as Kuklinski would not have been caught years earlier than he was.

I don't mind surveillance cameras about for the most part - I'm not taking issue with that part of what you've posted. Will people behave because of cameras being all over? This particular person on the train must be fully aware of cell phone recording - that didn't deter him.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:44 pm

Ahso!;1438311 wrote: Will people behave because of cameras being all over? This particular person on the train must be fully aware of cell phone recording that that didn't deter him.

I think enough will stay within the law who otherwise would have committed a crime, and that the difference will provide a tipping-point toward better detection rates on the remainder who go ahead.

As for the chap in the youtube clip, two points: firstly, by the look of him, he may have been drunk enough before he started his abuse not to have thought of cellphones, and secondly by the time he noticed he was being filmed, assuming he ever did notice, it was too late to take back what he'd been filmed saying. I doubt whether it even crossed his mind.

I, for one, have felt intimidated by this sort of behaviour. I think I would reasonably have anticipated a physical assault had that tirade been directed at me, and I speak as someone who's had it happen. Loud-mouthed drunks are unpredictable, short-fused and prone to escalating matters and I've been approached by more than my share.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Ahso!;1438311 wrote: This particular person on the train must be fully aware of cell phone recording - that didn't deter him.

I don't think this particular individual was aware of much. Watch his hands as he talks. Some psych medications cause that. This could be more of a mental health issue rather than an all out assault issue. The others on the train don't seem so perturbed, it's like they've already determined/sensed what is going on.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:58 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1438315 wrote: Some psych medications cause that. This could be more of a mental health issue rather than an all out assault issue.Whether I ought or not, I'm just as wary of people with medical health issues behaving that way as I am of drunks behaving that way when they're stood in front of me ranting. How they reached that state is immaterial to me. How a court sentences them, on the other hand, should definitely distinguish between the two. If their medication is awry then they're not, in my opinion, at fault, and I think judges sentence on that basis.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:38 pm

yeah I understand what you mean. I've been mugged and had a knife put to me on a train. I don't think it's about law as such I think it's about changing onlookers behaviour. The law, nor cameras change peoples behaviour........other people/peer pressure changes peoples behaviour.

I often compare the introduction of surveilance cameras to speed cameras. Speed cameras do not change peoples behaviour. Being pulled over by police and having the "discussion" changes peoples behaviour. Compare this incident with others. People in this vid are having the discussion. In others people are mostly silent, enabling these sods to continue in their rants. Fair enough 'safety in numbers ' and all that, but if more people turned as a group on the individual then you wouldn't have this situation arise as often.