NationStates Jolt Archive

Christians 'told not to preach'

Two Christians claim a police community support officer officer told them to stop leafleting in an area of east Birmingham where many Muslims live. (ah the wonders of BBC news)

The Christian Institute has complained to West Midlands Police the men were told to leave Alum Rock Road.

The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims.

West Midlands Police has investigated the complaint and said the officer intervened to diffuse a row.

Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, a pastor at Grace Bible Fellowship Church, in Saltley, Birmingham, had been distributing leaflets in nearby Alum Rock on 19 February when the police support officer (PCSO) intervened.

Apology demanded

They claimed he warned them to leave the area, saying: "If you come back here and get beat up, well you have been warned."

Mr Cunningham and Mr Abraham then agreed to leave.

The men, backed by the Christian Institute, have complained to the force, saying their human rights were infringed.

They have also demanded an apology and damages.

A West Midlands Police spokeswoman said: "One of the neighbourhood PCSOs intervened for the protection of all parties and to prevent the situation becoming inflamed."

The spokeswoman added that any further complaints should be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7430085.stm)

well it looks like the world is starting to look up (even though I haven't seen missionary's in yonks even the crazy ones in Town center) course I wonder who else this law could apply to? the postman?

[insert sensible comment on how the officer went too far and those Muslims would at best do what we all do to bothersome weirdos]

If I want to know what the Jehovas wish to tell me, I will come to them.
No need to bother me with spam-leaflets.

Fantastic. No more having to point out that I don't want Watchtower. Awesome times.

They should complain how Muslims are committing a hate crime on them by being in Europe.

They have also demanded an apology and damages.I'm torn between whether to go with
"If you come back here and get beat up"
Or asking whether they want to be paid in souls.

No need to bother me with spam-leaflets.

but the worlds coming to an end!

Fantastic. No more having to point out that I don't want Watchtower. Awesome times.

of course this will be a legal nightmare for the pizza guy :p

They should complain how Muslims are committing a hate crime on them by being in Europe.
Aye, well I'm sure the UK public will be behind me when I say that we neither want nor need missionaries around, especially Yanks from stupid sects.

but the worlds coming to an end!

All the more reason not to waste time reading leaflets ;)

As an aside - do Jehovas believe in "human rights" ? I assumed they would adhere to God given commandments...

The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims.
:confused:

:confused:

Well.. it IS equivalent to calling Islam wrong and inferior...

:confused:

well its not the most bizarre thing this has been used for

I don't like Jehova's witnesses. I don't like their holier-than-thou attitude, I don't like how they force themselves on people and I don't like how they treat their own members as if they were the Russian mafia (you may leav Dimitri, but den you vil be kild)... But this isn't about them.

This is the all too well-spread practice of putting the racist label on everything. It reminds me of that case a few years ago when people were giving out soup to the homeless somewhere in France in the wintertime. They were accused of committing a hate crime because the soup had pig meat in it and eventually they had to stop.

Is it just me or is going a wee bit too far?

I've never had the "pleasure" of a Jehovah's witness at my door. :(

Is it just me or is going a wee bit too far?

proselytizing is often enough viewed as lightly offensive by those targeted and spamming the place up with leaflets is just wasteful

yes a new law could be made but the current hate laws more or less just skip all the legislation anyway and leave it up to police interpretation...or something like that, really this is just one community support officer telling some nuisance to F off without getting in danger

I've never had the "pleasure" of a Jehovah's witness at my door. :(

just contact your local Jehovah [blank] (fun house?) and they will arrange a free visit :)

They have a human right to piss off muslims? Seriously?

As a constitutional scholar in the making, I'd like to point out that...

1. They have a right to freedom of speech, so long as this speech does not present a clear and present danger.
2. They have a freedom of religion, to a certain point, to proselytise, as long as it doesn't violate time, place, and manner restrictions.

However, as a thinking person, I'd like to point out:

3. Why must they do this? It spreads hatred of Christianity among these communities, and, much more importantly, hatred of America.
4. If they are infringing on the rights of the muslims to a peaceful neighborhood, the police are well within their rights to tell them to GTFO.

Jehovah's witnesses for the fail...

They haven't visited me in a while. :)

Aye, well I'm sure the UK public will be behind me when I say that we neither want nor need missionaries around, especially Yanks from stupid sects.

and Joseph Abraham, a pastor at Grace Bible Fellowship Church, in Saltley, Birmingham,

I'm pretty sure the pastor's from there.

It doesn't say anything good about that neighborhood that the police had legitimate concerns that the locals would meet the dialog of belief with fists. :( Bad for freedom.

I find it horrendous the police say they wont do their jobs because they disagree with the religion. stating your opinion about something even a religion is a right that needs to be protected.

They haven't visited me in a while. :)
Didn't your son turn the hose on them? Somehow I'm not surprised you've made the 'Do Not Pester' list.
It doesn't say anything good about that neighborhood that the police had legitimate concerns that the locals would meet the dialog of belief with fists. :( Bad for freedom.

Well presumably they are free to continue evangelising the muslims. It's just a really stupid idea. Like how jews are free to try and go to a neo-nazi rally.

I'm pretty sure the pastor's from there.

The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims.

It doesn't say anything good about that neighborhood that the police had legitimate concerns that the locals would meet the dialog of belief with fists. :( Bad for freedom.

who needs freedom when you never have to worry about the midday knock?

Didn't your son turn the hose on them? Somehow I'm not surprised you've made the 'Do Not Pester' list.

Yes. Well, he's three. He didn't know he was persecuting christians. :p

Well presumably they are free to continue evangelising the muslims. It's just a really stupid idea. Like how jews are free to try and go to a neo-nazi rally.

Oh, I fully agree. I think the officer is actually fairly on track by warning them away due to the fact that he perceived the threat of violence towards them.

What bothers me is that he perceived the potential for violence. That's the sort of thing I would personally rank as extremely disturbing.

who needs freedom when you never have to worry about the midday knock?

I'm pretty sure there's no Saltley, Birmingham in the US, but as you will.

I'm pretty sure the pastor's from there.
"The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims."

Tada!

Yes. Well, he's three. He didn't know he was persecuting christians. :p
Don't underestimate him.
Oh, I fully agree. I think the officer is actually fairly on track by warning them away due to the fact that he perceived the threat of violence towards them.

What bothers me is that he perceived the potential for violence. That's the sort of thing I would personally rank as extremely disturbing.

Yes, that is rather worrying.

I think the appropriate response to a police officer telling you that you could be assaulted is "Isn't it YOUR job to stop that crime once it's actually occurring?"


If the police were competent at all they would have waited for something to happen, then arrested the troublemakers. Instead, they (pretty much) threatened the Jehovah's Witness members (who while being part of a completely insane religious sect, still have a right to nonviolent freedom of speech).

I'm wondering what really happened. I don't see the police going to the BBC and letting them know about the incident, so all we know seems to stem from the missionaries, which may not be entirely honest about their involvement.

I'm wondering what really happened. I don't see the police going to the BBC and letting them know about the incident, so all we know seems to stem from the missionaries, which may not be entirely honest about their involvement.

My guess. The police suggested that a muslim community might not be the best place to evangelise. They went into persecuted mode and alerted the press.

What bothers me is that he perceived the potential for violence. That's the sort of thing I would personally rank as extremely disturbing.

I agree. We need less perceptive cops. *nod*

Just pointing out the ever-so-present point that these two men were not Jehovah's Witnesses.

Grace Bible Fellowship Church

Doesn't sound like Jehovah's Witnesses to me.

Doesn't sound like Jehovah's Witnesses to me.
http://www.gracebfc.org/

Aye, their website doesn't exactly smack of it either.

http://www.gracebfc.org/

Aye, their website doesn't exactly smack of it either.

I am surprised they were handing out flyers. normally they convert people by handing out food.

I am surprised they were handing out flyers. normally they convert people by handing out food.

Doesn't work so well in non-third world countries.


Yeah, it sounds like these aren't JW's given that it would be a temple instead of a church. Either way, the cops just needed to wait and take action if anything happened rather than essentially threatening the evangelists.

Doesn't work so well in non-third world countries.


Yeah, it sounds like these aren't JW's given that it would be a temple instead of a church. Either way, the cops just needed to wait and take action if anything happened rather than essentially threatening the evangelists.

Really works great in the US. For some reason i think the UK still has poor. Especially among the immigrants targeted.

Yeah, it sounds like these aren't JW's given that it would be a temple instead of a church. Either way, the cops just needed to wait and take action if anything happened rather than essentially threatening the evangelists.

Kingdom Hall is what they call them, FYI, not temples.

Really works great in the US. For some reason i think the UK still has poor.
Our poor are doing pretty alright for themselves by comparison to the levels of poverty in the US in the worst communities.
Especially among the immigrants targeted.
Eh, they still have some pride, you know.

Really works great in the US. For some reason i think the UK still has poor. Especially among the immigrants targeted.


Doesn't work as well among homeless/poor who just get food or a place to sleep and move on. Works very well in countries where you have to build whole towns, etc., so you can include churches.


BTW Galloism is right on the terminology, my mistake; it still wouldn't be called a church though.

Kingdom Hall is what they call them, FYI, not temples.

Mormons are the ones that call them temples.

Doesn't work as well among homeless/poor who just get food or a place to sleep and move on. Works very well in countries where you have to build whole towns, etc., so you can include churches.


BTW Galloism is right on the terminology, my mistake; it still wouldn't be called a church though.

grace doesn't do that in the 3rd world. normally they offer free food and approach you and talk about god while you eat. maybe only a 1% conversion rate but in these times that ain't bad.

I agree. We need less perceptive cops. *nod*

I'm voting for blind police myself. *nods*

grace doesn't do that in the 3rd world. normally they offer free food and approach you and talk about god while you eat. maybe only a 1% conversion rate but in these times that ain't bad.

Apu: Please do not offer my God a peanut.

Our poor are doing pretty alright for themselves by comparison to the levels of poverty in the US in the worst communities.

Eh, they still have some pride, you know.

lol Wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than in any other developed nation except the United Kingdom, which had the lowest standard of living for impoverished children.


seems your poor are worse then ours.

seems your poor are worse then ours.
No, seems the children are worse off. But then even our MC and rich children are in a pretty bad way, so this is unsurprisng.

Also you missed this - "In 2006, poverty rate for minors in the United States was 21.9% - highest child poverty rate in the developed world."

No, seems the children are worse off. But then even our MC and rich children are in a pretty bad way, so this is unsurprisng.

Also you missed this - "In 2006, poverty rate for minors in the United States was 21.9% - highest child poverty rate in the developed world."

but over all poverty in the US is 14%(thats on the high end low end is 12%) Versus 17% for the UK.
Seems our kids grow out of it more when it is time to get a job.

but over all poverty in the US is 14%(thats on the high end low end is 12%) Versus 17% for the UK.
Eh, what?

Says 21% in the figures on the article, which is higher than the UK rate by 4%.

I wonder what will happen when you get so many diverse people living in so small an area that one can't sneeze without hurting someone's feelings, stepping on someone's human rights or committing a hate crime.

Should be interesting.

I may be wrong but these two arent Jehovah's Witnesses, as a JW attends the Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses. These two men are from a different (I want to say religion, but its not a different one)...

Eh, what?

Says 21% in the figures on the article, which is higher than the UK rate by 4%.

the 21% rate is for children.

the 14% Versus 17% rate is for everyone.

Yeah you got some nice programs to help kids.

though I stand corrected
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4989070.stm

UK has 22% poverty rate. according to BBC article. and thats a drop from the normal 25%. the US rate of 14% is a rise from the normal 12%.

the 21% rate is for children.

the 14% Versus 17% rate is for everyone.

Yeah you got some nice programs to help kids.

though I stand corrected
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4989070.stm

UK has 22% poverty rate. according to BBC article. and thats a drop from the normal 25%. the US rate of 14% is a rise from the normal 12%.

It has a simple explanation. UK has higher taxes for entitlement programs resulting in more poverty among adults and less among children. Whereas the US has lower taxes for entitlement programs resulting in lower overall poverty since more money is spent in the economy paying employees instead of spent on the US government's welfare, etc., through business taxes. Therefore as an adult in the UK you are less likely to be employed than an adult in the US, but kids receive better welfare/medicaid (I'm not sure what it is called in the UK). This is reflected in the unemployment rates as well with the US's rate around 5% and the UK's around 10% IIRC. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475517/Unemployment-rate-times-higher-official-figures.html

The UK continues to claim it's unemployment is around 5% though, even though common sense would prove this to be impossible by comparing it to other European countries with similar economic policies.

Of course, that is the simple explanation. You could go into MUCH more detail.

I may be wrong but these two arent Jehovah's Witnesses, as a JW attends the Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses. These two men are from a different (I want to say religion, but its not a different one)...

Denomination?

"Excuse me ma'am! Do you have a minute to stop and talk? I'd like to talk to you about Jesus Christ."

"I'm sorry, I'm in a hurry to pick up my lesbian lover from her satanic ritual, but I'll get back to you!"

the 21% rate is for children.

the 14% Versus 17% rate is for everyone.[/QUOTE]
Uhu...

Let's see the Human Poverty Index for something more concrete :

UK - 14.8
US - 15.4

So there we go, we have less poverty, by the UN's reckoning.

It has a simple explanation. UK has higher taxes for entitlement programs resulting in more poverty among adults and less among children. Whereas the US has lower taxes for entitlement programs resulting in lower overall poverty since more money is spent in the economy paying employees instead of spent on the US government's welfare, etc., through business taxes. Therefore as an adult in the UK you are less likely to be employed than an adult in the US, but kids receive better welfare/medicaid (I'm not sure what it is called in the UK). This is reflected in the unemployment rates as well with the US's rate around 5% and the UK's around 10% IIRC.

Of course, that is the simple explanation. You could go into MUCH more detail.


your also leaving out the large catholic immigrant group in the Us that is both poor (immigrants tend to be) and think that birth control use will send them to hell. (remembers Mexican Ex Gf cussing him out for pulling out).

your also leaving out the large catholic immigrant group in the Us that is both poor (immigrants tend to be) and think that birth control use will send them to hell. (remembers Mexican Ex Gf cussing him out for pulling out).
Aye, we have Muslims from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh, so I wouldn't whine about poor immigrants with very conservative religious beliefs too much.

the 14% Versus 17% rate is for everyone.
Uhu...

Let's see the Human Poverty Index for something more concrete :

UK - 14.8
US - 15.4

So there we go, we have less poverty, by the UN's reckoning.


General policy: Don't trust the UN or its numbers. They screw things up badly.

General policy: Don't trust the UN or its numbers. They screw things up badly.
...

Right... so you're just going to give up on the one set of figures which uses the same standards for every country?

The UK's opinion of "what is poverty" and how they rate it is not the same as the US rate. Instead of comparing apples and oranges, you instead dismiss the figures... because they're from the UN...

Uhu. Good one.

your also leaving out the large catholic immigrant group in the Us that is both poor (immigrants tend to be) and think that birth control use will send them to hell. (remembers Mexican Ex Gf cussing him out for pulling out).


Not fair to count them as the US has not responsibility to them as they are not here legally.

Not fair to count them as the US has not responsibility to them as they are not here legally.

most of your media and UN sources count them.

most of your media and UN sources count them.
Same with the UK. Oh noes, there might be some kind of parity in treatment :eek:

I'm sorry I have to refuse to debate with anyone who takes UN figures seriously. The UN is the biggest joke the world has ever produced, and even in that position, it creates new problems without fixing existing ones.

I click on page 5 and it doesn't take me to page 5...

Aye, we have Muslims from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh, so I wouldn't whine about poor immigrants with very conservative religious beliefs too much.

ours(Hispanics) make up 14% of the population.
yours(Pakistanis + Bangladeshis+1% for whatever else in your immigrant group is poor and Muslim) make up at most 3%.
according to the 2001 census of the UK.
and the 2000 census of the US.

Pretty big difference Id say.

Not fair to count them as the US has not responsibility to them as they are not here legally.

I'd actually argue that it's difficult to count them, because they're harder for the system to access and document, because of their own recalcitrance to involve themselves in existing programs, out of fear of the potential consequences of doing so. If they refuse the help that is available, and it is, then it's difficult to blame the government and the rest of the population for their plight.

Our government rarely deports anyone outside of convicted felons. We simply don't have the capacity to deport undocumented's who are not significant security risks.

Our government rarely deports anyone outside of convicted felons. We simply don't have the capacity to deport undocumented's who are not significant security risks.

We do have the capacity. It's just not worth the time and the cost. It is much cheaper just to try to stop new illegal immigrants from entering.


This has gone completely off-topic...

the 14% Versus 17% rate is for everyone.
Uhu...

Let's see the Human Poverty Index for something more concrete :

UK - 14.8
US - 15.4

So there we go, we have less poverty, by the UN's reckoning.

The HPI has lots of flaws.
They use Pretax income levels.
And they don't effectively take into account cost of living differences.
Or the differences in immigration patterns when measuring % of population educated (immigrants don't tend to have an education, we just have a lot more of them)

Well the biggest one there is using pretax income levels. I think that would automatically make the UK look better than they are given that they tax much more heavily than the US.

This has gone completely off-topic...
Welcome to NS:G!

Well the biggest one there is using pretax income levels. I think that would automatically make the UK look better than they are given that they tax much more heavily than the US.

that and things like literacy rates. Factoring into the index.

I think somewhere like 20% of Americans do not speak english as a first language. so of course they are going to do poorly on english literacy test.

that and things like literacy rates. Factoring into the index.

I think somewhere like 20% of Americans do not speak english as a first language. so of course they are going to do poorly on english literacy test.


The question is "How much of that 20% is not in the country legally?" factor those out and it would bring America into a much better light. For obvious reasons, America has more illegal immigrants than the UK.

I'm sorry I have to refuse to debate with anyone who takes UN figures seriously. The UN is the biggest joke the world has ever produced, and even in that position, it creates new problems without fixing existing ones.

A bit off the subject, but...thank you.

Seriously, though. If it wasn't for Jehovah's Witnesses, none of us would have a reason to get up on Saturday mornings.

Preaching in a predominantly Muslim area is now a hate crime???

What's next? Cameron arrested for mocking Brown in the House?

Preaching in a predominantly Muslim area is now a hate crime???

Has there been a conviction?

Has there been a conviction?

I don't mean that.

From the website: "The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims."

I don't mean that.

From the website: "The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims."


Some Muslims are both easily offended and quickly resort to violence...

It's an interesting combination that results in both lawsuits and deaths. This is why they were advised it was a hate crime, because they COULD be sued for it (even though that is completely unreasonable). I'm still more disturbed that the cops told them that they were in danger unless they stopped...

I don't mean that.

From the website: "The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims."

According to them anyway...

Since the report says there was a "heated argument," I'm sure that PCSOs operated with the best of intentions to diffuse the row.

And if the missionaries did go back, knowing that there presence was incendiary (we can only speculate on whether that is because they are from the US or christian missionaries, or both), then I suppose you could say that it was a hate crime. Depending on how technically you interpret the term.

It would still be ill advised though.

Some Muslims are both easily offended and quickly resort to violence...

I'm not convinced either side is totally innocent if that is the case.

There seems to be plenty of evan Christians from the US on the streets in Britain, eager to convert. So of them can be pretty - enthusiastic to the point of offensiveness.

And that is being kind

Doesn't sound like Jehovah's Witnesses to me.

I may be wrong but these two arent Jehovah's Witnesses

the sad thing is I foresaw this yet it still burns to read

I'm sorry I have to refuse to debate with anyone who takes UN figures seriously.

aww bless, if I was you I would seriously take a look at any research you have ever taken for granted because chances the U.N has more or less produced supporting evidence for them all especially in 3rd world development

What's next? Cameron arrested for mocking Brown in the House?

this thought amuses me :)

According to them anyway...

Since the report says there was a "heated argument," I'm sure that PCSOs operated with the best of intentions to diffuse the row.

And if the missionaries did go back, knowing that there presence was incendiary (we can only speculate on whether that is because they are from the US or christian missionaries, or both), then I suppose you could say that it was a hate crime. Depending on how technically you interpret the term.

It would still be ill advised though.

It'd be stupid for them to go back and continue preaching, but I wouldn't classify that as a hate crime. They're free to exercise their right to distribute leaflets as long as they are law-abiding - and they were!

According to them anyway...

Since the report says there was a "heated argument," I'm sure that PCSOs operated with the best of intentions to diffuse the row.

And if the missionaries did go back, knowing that there presence was incendiary (we can only speculate on whether that is because they are from the US or christian missionaries, or both), then I suppose you could say that it was a hate crime. Depending on how technically you interpret the term.

It would still be ill advised though.


Generally, I would think a hate crime would need to involve a symbol of oppression or actual oppression through overt racism or violence.

the sad thing is I foresaw this yet it still burns to read

:confused:

Generally, I would think a hate crime would need to involve a symbol of oppression or actual oppression through overt racism or violence.

I'm sure that it can be covered under "inciting religious hatred/violence" a rather contraversial bit of law over here.


I was not sure that "hate crime" was used over here.

This is why they were advised it was a hate crime, because they COULD be sued for it (even though that is completely unreasonable). I'm still more disturbed that the cops told them that they were in danger unless they stopped...

I'd say the officer was trying to get rid of them myself

and if you could sue the local council for getting your arse kicked I can assure you that Birmingham would be long bankrupt

Generally, I would think a hate crime would need to involve a symbol of oppression or actual oppression through overt racism or violence.

or possibly harassing Muslim residents to convert to Christianity

title was a joke based on what it would be like living in a world without proselytizing

Ah, a fantasy world. Gotcha.

EDIT: Lets do the time warp again!

:confused:

title was a joke based on what it would be like living in a world without proselytizing

I'd say the officer was trying to get rid of them myself

and if you could sue the local council for getting your arse kicked I can assure you that Birmingham would be long bankrupt



or possibly harassing Muslim residents to convert to Christianity

There's a difference between "annoying" and "harassment"
Evangelists are actually more "funny" than either of those.

It's not a hate crime when the Baptists try to get me to convert from Catholicism... it is a hate crime when they burn crosses in my yard.


That would be the difference. These Evangelists were never a threat to the Muslims.

There's a difference between "annoying" and "harassment"

yes but the police officer wanted to get rid of them and so found an excuse to that wouldn't land him in any trouble :)

That would be the difference. These Evangelists were never a threat to the Muslims.

hate laws don't go hand in hand with threats silly

yes but the police officer wanted to get rid of them and so found an excuse to that wouldn't land him in any trouble :)



hate laws don't go hand in hand with threats silly


They don't in Britain, apparently. Generally, what would compose a hate crime is either overt racist gestures (eg. hateful or racist language), a threat of violence due to race, or actual violence carried out due to race. None of these conditions were met.

The officer was being an idiot, and probably violating freedom of religion laws.

There's a difference between "annoying" and "harassment"
Evangelists are actually more "funny" than either of those.

It's not a hate crime when the Baptists try to get me to convert from Catholicism... it is a hate crime when they burn crosses in my yard.

That would be the difference. These Evangelists were never a threat to the Muslims.

For sure. It is easy to see that from where you (and I) are sitting.

However, the PCSO's job is to help keep the peace (having very little in the way of real authority AFAIK), would rather they wait for it to evolve from a "heated arguement" to fist fight before action was taken?

They don't in Britain, apparently. Generally, what would compose a hate crime is either overt racist gestures (eg. hateful or racist language), a threat of violence due to race, or actual violence carried out due to race. None of these conditions were met.

I've already pointed out another possibility.

EDIT: from the home office web site

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/
Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

rather easy now to put it in perspective.

The officer was being an idiot,

Or keeping the peace. After all. It worked and the investigation done by the police found nothing wrong.

and probably violating freedom of religion laws.

And what law[s] would that be?

Generally, what would compose a hate crime is either overt racist gestures (eg. hateful or racist language), a threat of violence due to race, or actual violence carried out due to race. None of these conditions were met.

Generally?

no hate crime covers prejudice too and is so vague it allows police to basically act on their own judgment

The officer was being an idiot, and probably violating freedom of religion laws.

1) its not idiocy when everyone goes home happy (well apart from the missionaries but needs of many)

2) which freedom of religion law was he violating? *knows I will have some fun with this one*

edit: curse you Levee en masse getting in twice before me!

For sure. It is easy to see that from where you (and I) are sitting.

However, the PCSO's job is to help keep the peace (having very little in the way of real authority AFAIK), would rather they wait for it to evolve from a "heated arguement" to fist fight before action was taken?


If you're a cop, you have to wait for a crime to be committed or be about to be committed. You can't just say "I think a crime MAY be committed, so I'm going to violate someone's rights".

Example: You can't just stop a suspicious looking person from going into a bank; you have to stop them once they try to rob the bank.

If you're a cop, you have to wait for a crime to be committed or be about to be committed. You can't just say "I think a crime MAY be committed, so I'm going to violate someone's rights".

I think you will find policeman can and do regularly

bolded means you see it our way :)

Example: You can't just stop a suspicious looking person from going into a bank; you have to stop them once they try to rob the bank.

no, they will be taken out by bank security though because its their job

If you're a cop, you have to wait for a crime to be committed or be about to be committed.

Well that's alright.

He wasn't a cop...

You can't just say "I think a crime MAY be committed, so I'm going to violate someone's rights".

Um, police can do that, and they do do that. Fairly frequently.

Example: You can't just stop a suspicious looking person from going into a bank; you have to stop them once they try to rob the bank.

Not in that example no.

What do you think about conspiracy laws?

Well that's alright.

He wasn't a cop...



Um, police can do that, and they do do that. Fairly frequently.



Not in that example no.

What do you think about conspiracy laws?

A conspiracy would require proof that a crime was planned to be committed. In this case, there was no planned crime...

BTW what is a police community support officer? That sounds like BS.


EDIT: Read up on it and it sounds like an awful job... You aren't armed and still have to step in to stop violation of laws. Okay, now I'm going to say that this PCSO should have just called for an actual cop if he thought there was a problem...

A conspiracy would require proof that a crime was planned to be committed. In this case, there was no planned crime...

How do you gather the evidence without first violating their rights though?

BTW what is a police community support officer? That sounds like BS.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

Wiki can explain it better then I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_community_support_officer#Powers

I'm going to sum the whole story up:

Cop without a gun in a poor, Muslim neighborhood explains how the UK got attacked AFTER the security increases resulting from 9/11 were implemented in the Western world.

Cop without a gun

this is Britain, are police don't need guns ;)

in a poor, Muslim neighborhood explains how the UK got attacked AFTER the security increases resulting from 9/11 were implemented in the Western world.

actually we did arm the police of the tubes and it didn't do much (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm)

I'm going to sum the whole story up:

Cop without a gun in a poor, Muslim neighborhood explains how the UK got attacked AFTER the security increases resulting from 9/11 were implemented in the Western world.
Uhu...

I'll sum it up better for you :

"Thick missionaries about to get punched, the police intervene and stop this from happening"

The US Christians said they were advised they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims.

AWESOME!

*uses as precedent*

this is Britain, are police don't need guns ;)



actually we did arm the police of the tubes and it didn't do much (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm)

Your police need glasses before they get guns. couldn't even tell Brazilians from mid easterners.