Shock at hate attack against gay man (From Swindon Advertiser)

he was walking home with a 22 year old who was not gay. yeah right... bye the way a lad in my local was battered up old town saturday night, he is married, no mention of that in the adver.

The problem with sub dividing crime as the PC world now does, has the unintended consequence of normalising crimes against certain victims, and escalating less serious crime due to this sub-divide.

Another consequence of this as tradesman points out is that the reporting becomes selective, creating an illusion as to the nature of the true crime levels and victims.

Assault is assault no matter who the victim is, gay, straight, black or white, old or young. The penalties sadly do not reflect this.

What ignorance! Firstly, the adver DOES run stories of all kinds of assaults. Google 'battered wife' 'football brawl' 'fight in town centre' etc and you'll find numerous stories from many local newspapers. You've raised a problem that doesnt exist.

Secondly, your simple 'assault is assault' is very short sighted. If I provoked my assasin by calling him 'a fat idiot and his wife a hag' I'd be a very different victim from someone who was attacked simply because he had glitter on his face and was walking home with a man minding his own business. A failure to recognise quite an obvious difference indicates very few brain cells (or maybe even homophobia)

... also I've just read the rest of your nonsense. 'the penalties sadly do not reflect this'

Why are you making things up to create the illusion that gays get special treatment? Or are you just misinformed or naive to believe everything the Daily Mail/Express tell you?

I'm a criminal lawyer and the penalties for such crimes are the same. The basic offence is an assualt (threatening violence), followed by a battery (inflicting violence, then ABH, GBH and so forth and each carry their own specific penalties which are by no way effected by the victims sexuality.

Can you enlighten me on what your opinion is based as I may need to change my profession

TomFC wrote:
What ignorance! Firstly, the adver DOES run stories of all kinds of assaults. Google 'battered wife' 'football brawl' 'fight in town centre' etc and you'll find numerous stories from many local newspapers. You've raised a problem that doesnt exist. Secondly, your simple 'assault is assault' is very short sighted. If I provoked my assasin by calling him 'a fat idiot and his wife a hag' I'd be a very different victim from someone who was attacked simply because he had glitter on his face and was walking home with a man minding his own business. A failure to recognise quite an obvious difference indicates very few brain cells (or maybe even homophobia)

you are a fool if you believe that he was attacked because he had 'glitter' on his face, gary doesnt live in swindon!

TomFC wrote:
... also I've just read the rest of your nonsense. 'the penalties sadly do not reflect this' Why are you making things up to create the illusion that gays get special treatment? Or are you just misinformed or naive to believe everything the Daily Mail/Express tell you? I'm a criminal lawyer and the penalties for such crimes are the same. The basic offence is an assualt (threatening violence), followed by a battery (inflicting violence, then ABH, GBH and so forth and each carry their own specific penalties which are by no way effected by the victims sexuality. Can you enlighten me on what your opinion is based as I may need to change my profession

yeah, change your profession you tw~t

tradesman wrote:

TomFC wrote: What ignorance! Firstly, the adver DOES run stories of all kinds of assaults. Google 'battered wife' 'football brawl' 'fight in town centre' etc and you'll find numerous stories from many local newspapers. You've raised a problem that doesnt exist. Secondly, your simple 'assault is assault' is very short sighted. If I provoked my assasin by calling him 'a fat idiot and his wife a hag' I'd be a very different victim from someone who was attacked simply because he had glitter on his face and was walking home with a man minding his own business. A failure to recognise quite an obvious difference indicates very few brain cells (or maybe even homophobia)

you are a fool if you believe that he was attacked because he had 'glitter' on his face, gary doesnt live in swindon!

It was an unprovoked attack on poor young man walking home from a night out.

The facts he had glitter on his face, was coming out of gay club and was with a man suggests he was attacked simply for being gay. This is an awful incident, just as any other unprovoked attack is equally appalling. People of such attacks should have our sympathy not unhelpful comments.

Maybe I am fool and should change profession. Tradesman, got any work?

TomFC wrote:
... also I've just read the rest of your nonsense. 'the penalties sadly do not reflect this' Why are you making things up to create the illusion that gays get special treatment? Or are you just misinformed or naive to believe everything the Daily Mail/Express tell you? I'm a criminal lawyer and the penalties for such crimes are the same. The basic offence is an assualt (threatening violence), followed by a battery (inflicting violence, then ABH, GBH and so forth and each carry their own specific penalties which are by no way effected by the victims sexuality. Can you enlighten me on what your opinion is based as I may need to change my profession

So you're a lawyer eh?

Lets see - failure to understand the original point, garbled and nonsensical response, inability to make a point in plain english, self-important prat.

Yep, sounds about right.

Lets see - in plain english. I do understand the original point. I just disagreed.

Did you understand? Not sure?

Tradesman
You attacked firstly the claim that the 22 year old is not gay. The point was the man was attacked because he was gay. It is his choice to be gay and should not be atacked purely for that reason. End of. Not every attack or fight is reported in the adver as mainly they have not been reported. You did notmention why the lad in your local was "battered".
Tom FC our lawyer clearly referred to Bobfms comments and you insulted his integrity--if you read his comments he simply says the law deals with the crime and level of attack not the reason. The judge or justice of course can take into account the circumstances when they sentence. Consider this though. When was the last time you read a report of a gay guy attacking a straight guy for being straight? Fact is no one should be attacked for any reason when walking home from a night out.

It's simply not true to say the law doesn't with the reason for the crime. What about self defence?

Also, if two grown men get in a fight at a football match, they are far more likely to be sent to prison (as well as receive a football banning order) than if that fight occurred in a pub on a Saturday night even though the football incident is the lesser crime as it is almost always between two or more people who want the fight to happen.

This attack on the gay is terrible, of course it is, but no more terrible than any other unprovoked assault and calling it a "Gay hate crime" is sensasionalist.

TomFC, I fail to understand the necessity to launch such an attack on me. If you are a lawyer then heaven help your clients.

As you clearly are new to this paper, an assumption based on the fact that regular readers and commentators know I am a former police officer, not of this force.

I worked both as a Detective and as a Local beat officer. In addition I taught Criminal Law, in house. So getting my right to make professional comment out of the way. The police are instructed to categorise crime not just by the physical nature of the event but to take account the nature of the victim. If you were a lawyer you would know that, so accepting that you are then your comments are clearly designed to mislead.

Sentencing of criminals has always been based on mitigating or aggravating factors, sexual orientation of the victim being just one.

The police are told to treat crimes differently, if not, why have Wiltshire Police set up a 104 strong unit to deal specifically with Gay issues.

The point I was making was all crime should be treated equally.

itsamess I fully concur with your last statement which is what I was trying to tactfully say in my original post.

However TomFC rather proves my point about a sub division in that he immediately libels me by suggesting I am mentally defective and homophobic.

'A failure to recognise quite an obvious difference indicates very few brain cells (or maybe even homophobia)'

May I suggest that TomFC thinks more carefully before making future comments of this nature, he is making the Advertiser potentially liable for his words, which as a Lawyer I am sure he would know. So not even a 'mitigation' of lack of knowledge would work in his defence.

Lars

I did say the judge or justice would take into account the circumstances of the offence in sentencing. Here we cannot really judge as there are 2 sides to every story. Remember the case of Tony Martin who shot a gypsy who broke into his house? Likewise sometimes other justice systems have self defence and crime of passion as legitimate defences--we dont. In this case we will not know the level of violence in the attack until it goes to court--if it ever does.!!

Can we describe all the other daily assaults that take place in Swindon as Hetrosexual hate crimes? No? Thought not.

Just for the record and to update TomFC's knowledge.

Criminal Justice Act Part 12 sentencing guidelines:

145 Increase in sentences for racial or religious aggravation

(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence other than one under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (racially or religiously aggravated assaults, criminal damage, public order offences and harassment etc).

(2) If the offence was racially or religiously aggravated, the court—

(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and

(b) must state in open court that the offence was so aggravated.

(3) Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (meaning of “racially or religiously aggravated”) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 of that Act.
146 Increase in sentences for aggravation related to disability or sexual orientation

(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) Those circumstances are—

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—

(i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or

(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or

(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—

(i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or

(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.

(3) The court—

(a) must treat the fact that the offence was committed in any of those circumstances as an aggravating factor, and

(b) must state in open court that the offence was committed in such circumstances.

(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.

(5) In this section “disability” means any physical or mental impairment.

Bobfm

It is no longer the Police who decide what level of of offence the suspect will face--that is decided by the CPS on the evidence gathered by the Police. I would suggest you accept the lawyers current experience as to your outdated experience. For example our current Police can issue fixed penalty tickets for a wide range of offences--if the recipient will not sign the ticket they get arrested. To sign a ticket is an admission of guilt--if you get my meaning?

itsamess, I guess you posted prior to my latest.

I am fully conversant with how the modern system of policing works, or doesn't, dependant on your own personal view.

The facts remain as I said, crimes of a certain type are investigated more vigorously than others and as I have shown the resultant punishments receive greater sentences.

Sorry that last bit came out wrong. Meant to say the resultant punishments are greater as my previous but one shows.

Again Bob that depends on the bench or the judge on the evidence before them as has been seen so many times in the adver--whichever way it goes there will always be an imbalance in the law and punishment.

itsamess wrote:
Again Bob that depends on the bench or the judge on the evidence before them as has been seen so many times in the adver--whichever way it goes there will always be an imbalance in the law and punishment.

Police and Justice as demonstrated are too busy discussing law articles than actually get a criminal sentenced
No wonder why there is so many of them out there on "technicalities".
Justice should be given back to the citizens (trial jury only and broadcasted on TV prime time preferably), no identity protection (face the consequences!) or leave the country.
There is general malaise nowadays that the justice and police have completely withdrawn from Society into some sort of close circuit.
This has to change.
We want elected, police chiefs
we want elected judges
we want jurys
we want less and tougher Laws!
1 crime / 1 offense = same tariff (regardless of age, sex, race, religion!)

This is a hate crime end of. These cowards picked on an innocent gay guy walking home from a club, subjected him to physical and verbal abuse, and today I'm totally ashamed to say I'm a Swindonian - we need to protect minorities in this town; and if they are subject to brutal and cowardly attacks, then the law needs to punish the offenders most severely; otherwise the minorities; those who are gay, black, asian etc will never come forward - I praise this man for taking a stand; bullies, cowards should never get away with crime; especially those driven by hate; prejudice and ignorance.
I'm glad the Advertiser has taken a stand too - well done!

BobFM, by my reckoning you claim to have been; an electrician, a beat constable, a detective, a 'teacher of Criminal Law' (I assume that meant teachng the green-cross code to kids), a psycologist, a UKIP rep and of course the ultimate profession, pub landlord.

You claim to have worked in the pub industry for "over 25 years". You are 57(?) and it's only in the last year or so that you have learned how to spell and string a coherent sentence together.

Given that you now proudly sport bare and partially bandaged legs coupled with socks and sandals on a regular basis I find this frankly astonishing.

Unless you left school at the age of twelve (possible I guess) how on earth did you fit it all in?

danielm wrote:
This is a hate crime end of. These cowards picked on an innocent gay guy walking home from a club, subjected him to physical and verbal abuse, and today I'm totally ashamed to say I'm a Swindonian - we need to protect minorities in this town; and if they are subject to brutal and cowardly attacks, then the law needs to punish the offenders most severely; otherwise the minorities; those who are gay, black, asian etc will never come forward - I praise this man for taking a stand; bullies, cowards should never get away with crime; especially those driven by hate; prejudice and ignorance. I'm glad the Advertiser has taken a stand too - well done!

Before you start shaming yourself think!
How many crimes are committed against minorities and how many crimes are actually committed by minorities?

You will find that the proportion of ethnic minorities in our prisons is rather disturbing.

yes we have to protect minorities, but most importantly we have to protect everyone!

With the notable exception of crimes against fashion; most gay guys I know are peace-loving, gentle and great citizens; they need to be protected, what you refer to Swindonstani is a bigger issue; namely how British ethnic minorities feel totally disconnected by the establishment and turn to crime for many complex reasons... I'm ashamed when anyone is subject to any verbal or physical attack.

I am the man who was attacked, and I will fill in some gaps as the Adver would not have been able to print what was said.

Firstly, the man walking up the hill with me was straight, he simply struck up conversation walking up the hill. End of.
Secondly: I have read in the adver this week about a man attacked near the Oasis, and a man attacked in Liquid, so yes, they report all incidents they are aware of. (Mine by the way, was NOT reported on the police Voicebank: a friend of mine notified the Advertiser.)

Does the following (brief selection of about 4-5 minutes) indicate a hate crime? (All said in an angry, hate filled attitude, shouting etc)

"You're a f**king gay"
"You're a f**king embarrassment"
"What the f**k are you doing walking with a f*ggot?" "Don't you know he just wants to take you around the corner and f**k your a*se?"

After I had been punched and kicked to the ground, I managed to get up and get to the other side of the road.

He followed and was screaming "I can't believe this f*cking **** is still standing. Why is he not knocked out"
"Get down here so I can finish this off".

If that is not your definition of a hate crime, then what is?

I had choice; to run away when I got the chance, or to stay around to ensure the other guy wasn’t assaulted if left on his own. I chose the latter and was able to call the police; I got a lucky break. If I hadn’t been able to take the punch, or I’d had too much to drink, or didn’t get the opportunity to get off the floor as I was being kicked at, or it was someone else who was weaker, or knocked out, I hate to think what would have happened.

Thank you to the adver for raising this.

I understand peoples concerns over the classification of 'hate crimes', as ALL attacks are horrific. But, when someone is singled out for a specific reason; race, sexuality etc, then they have been specifically made a target for something beyond their control; the victim can't pass it off as simply random attack. I was attacked because I am gay. How do I rationalise that? I cannot. If I was attacked randomly, I could tell myself it was 'random', which may help to deal with it. Either way, an unprovoked attack on anyone is unacceptable, and an attack of this sort in the 21st Century just proves there is still a lot of ignorance and bigotry out there. It has got to stop, and arguing over it does not help anyone.

Posters will have noticed I took a two week leave of absence from posting, which I notified to Dave King prior to doin so my intention was to demonstrate that some like CO simply come on here to have a 'pop' at me, rather than engage in debate. CO has proved my point.

I have carried on reading the threads and guess who hadn't posted since my absence.

Stalking is a crime, and that does include Cyber stalking.

That aside, I have always worn shorts in the pub 95% of the time, including in the winter as I find the building to be too hot.

I have never every word saddles, so that is a blatant lie. As for the bandage try again, it is a medically prescribed stocking, as I have an ankle issue currently being investigate. I am awaiting an appointment to have a scan. If you like CO I'll send you a copy of the notice.

You can find my work experience and qualifications astonishing if you wish. The are all true, perhaps you would like a copy of my CV.

As you clearly visit my pub more often than you would admit please feel free to identify yourself and I will provide you with all the proof you need. But of course you won't, stalkers tend not to want to be identified.

I do apologise to other posters. I will no longer respond to CO's posts, and will now hope the Web team get my point.

"The white man was described by the victim as quite broad with toned muscles, about 25-years-old, with short black spiky hair.

He was wearing a T-shirt and knee-length shorts."

Sounds like somebody's in denial about their sexuality.

Anyway, ho hum, another night, another few beatings, attacks, muggings and general disorder in good old Swindon town.

We have our lenient judges to thank for this mess - do not forget that.

BobFm

I actually have respect you for backing up your original opinion and i take your point. I also agree with less and tougher laws (but that conversation is for another day)!

The points I made weren't against you specifically but against the general argument that suggested an attack was the same regardless of whether the incident was provoked or unprovoked. From what the adver reports he was attacked for being gay and this is worse (just as any other unprovoked attack) than someone who starts a fight or provokes an attack. Surely an unprovoked attack on an old frail women would also different. Each offence carries a maximum penalty and hopefully common sense prevails. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

... I only visited the website to read the Swindon WBA match report!

Bobfm wrote:
Posters will have noticed I took a two week leave of absence from posting, which I notified to Dave King prior to doin so my intention was to demonstrate that some like CO simply come on here to have a 'pop' at me, rather than engage in debate. CO has proved my point.

I have carried on reading the threads and guess who hadn't posted since my absence.

Stalking is a crime, and that does include Cyber stalking.

That aside, I have always worn shorts in the pub 95% of the time, including in the winter as I find the building to be too hot.

I have never every word saddles, so that is a blatant lie. As for the bandage try again, it is a medically prescribed stocking, as I have an ankle issue currently being investigate. I am awaiting an appointment to have a scan. If you like CO I'll send you a copy of the notice.

You can find my work experience and qualifications astonishing if you wish. The are all true, perhaps you would like a copy of my CV.

As you clearly visit my pub more often than you would admit please feel free to identify yourself and I will provide you with all the proof you need. But of course you won't, stalkers tend not to want to be identified.

I do apologise to other posters. I will no longer respond to CO's posts, and will now hope the Web team get my point.

Self-important blabbermouth.



Anon1000 thank you for posting your account, quite harrowing and with so much more gravitas than the usual rubbish poted on here.

anon10000, unless I have missed something no one has suggested it was a crime born out of your sexual orientation, the point I was making is that each assault no matter who the victim, should be treated with the same rigor regardless of the victim that simply does not happen.

TomFC, a bit difficult not to take it personally given your end comments on the first post.

That aside, I agree that some crimes create a greater 'media' stir than others. My view has always been that all crimes deserve the same amount of commitment, whether Common Assault, ABH, GBH etc. I am also aware of the constraints on time etc.

Tougher sentences are something I firmly believe in and again always have. However creating specific sentencing guidelines can and does aggravate and already volatile situation within society.

Again I have always said you do not stop prejudice by Acts of Parliament. We have a bucket load and on top of which we have a Human Rights Act mainly used by Criminals. And yet when an innocent man like Andrew Symeou is to be extradited under the illegal European Arrest Warrant the House of Lords, says hearing the case is not in the public interest, contrast that with recent extradition cases involving illegal immigrants and terror suspects is it any wonder prejudice still exists, however wrong that may be.

anon10000 wrote:
I am the man who was attacked, and I will fill in some gaps as the Adver would not have been able to print what was said. Firstly, the man walking up the hill with me was straight, he simply struck up conversation walking up the hill. End of. Secondly: I have read in the adver this week about a man attacked near the Oasis, and a man attacked in Liquid, so yes, they report all incidents they are aware of. (Mine by the way, was NOT reported on the police Voicebank: a friend of mine notified the Advertiser.) Does the following (brief selection of about 4-5 minutes) indicate a hate crime? (All said in an angry, hate filled attitude, shouting etc) "You're a f**king gay" "You're a f**king embarrassment" "What the f**k are you doing walking with a f*ggot?" "Don't you know he just wants to take you around the corner and f**k your a*se?" After I had been punched and kicked to the ground, I managed to get up and get to the other side of the road. He followed and was screaming "I can't believe this f*cking **** is still standing. Why is he not knocked out" "Get down here so I can finish this off". If that is not your definition of a hate crime, then what is? I had choice; to run away when I got the chance, or to stay around to ensure the other guy wasn’t assaulted if left on his own. I chose the latter and was able to call the police; I got a lucky break. If I hadn’t been able to take the punch, or I’d had too much to drink, or didn’t get the opportunity to get off the floor as I was being kicked at, or it was someone else who was weaker, or knocked out, I hate to think what would have happened. Thank you to the adver for raising this. I understand peoples concerns over the classification of 'hate crimes', as ALL attacks are horrific. But, when someone is singled out for a specific reason; race, sexuality etc, then they have been specifically made a target for something beyond their control; the victim can't pass it off as simply random attack. I was attacked because I am gay. How do I rationalise that? I cannot. If I was attacked randomly, I could tell myself it was 'random', which may help to deal with it. Either way, an unprovoked attack on anyone is unacceptable, and an attack of this sort in the 21st Century just proves there is still a lot of ignorance and bigotry out there. It has got to stop, and arguing over it does not help anyone.

Attacks on persons happens all the time, and until you become the recipient you do not realise how violent our country has become.
People in the UK are very tolerant to a certain extent, very tolerant Id say.
Some people presents a "softer" target, most rapes are on white women, are these race crimes?
Most criminals are opportunists, yes you have been singled out in this attack, but rather as being attacked because of your sexual orientation, you have been attacked because you presented an easy target. If you had been a 6'2 black gay it wouldn't have happened, I can promise you that.

swindonistani, you make a number of good points.

Oddly all this discimination legislation creates it's own issues, certain religions and cultures are totally against homosexuality, and are criticised for this.

There is no easy answer other than to treat all equally.

"If you had been a 6'2 black gay it wouldn't have happened, I can promise you that."

Although, it is interesting that one of the men who attacked this poor man simply for being gay is actually of mixed race - you'd have thought he'd have been worried about attacks on minorities, not engaging in them.

anon10000, I think you will find that you would have been attacked anyway, the screaming abuse is just part of the incident, if you had been black no doubt the thug would have shouted racist abuse, if white, he would just have shouted abuse. The attack is no worse than any other one that occurs daily in Swindon.

Captain Sensible wrote:
anon10000, I think you will find that you would have been attacked anyway, the screaming abuse is just part of the incident, if you had been black no doubt the thug would have shouted racist abuse, if white, he would just have shouted abuse. The attack is no worse than any other one that occurs daily in Swindon.

Correct.

Scum like this are just looking for a way to 'justify' their actions in their stupid twisted little minds. They will find whatever label they can to fuel their hatred and use that as the excuse for doing what they enjoy most - inflicting pain on someone vulnerable.

What the majority of people want to see is the police and the courts dealing with these vermin effectively so that none of us, gay, straight, black, white or whatever, have to tolerate these daily attacks which for the most part go unpunished.

ifuwantblood wrote:

Captain Sensible wrote: anon10000, I think you will find that you would have been attacked anyway, the screaming abuse is just part of the incident, if you had been black no doubt the thug would have shouted racist abuse, if white, he would just have shouted abuse. The attack is no worse than any other one that occurs daily in Swindon.

Correct. Scum like this are just looking for a way to 'justify' their actions in their stupid twisted little minds. They will find whatever label they can to fuel their hatred and use that as the excuse for doing what they enjoy most - inflicting pain on someone vulnerable. What the majority of people want to see is the police and the courts dealing with these vermin effectively so that none of us, gay, straight, black, white or whatever, have to tolerate these daily attacks which for the most part go unpunished.

Anyone being attacked should try to "acquire/capture" (bite, grab hair, scratch, clothing) any DNA evidence from its attacker(s) skin, hair, saliva
then say outloud: "whatever you do now the Police will find you"
We need a compulsary DNA database.

anon10000 wrote:
I am the man who was attacked, and I will fill in some gaps as the Adver would not have been able to print what was said. Firstly, the man walking up the hill with me was straight, he simply struck up conversation walking up the hill. End of. Secondly: I have read in the adver this week about a man attacked near the Oasis, and a man attacked in Liquid, so yes, they report all incidents they are aware of. (Mine by the way, was NOT reported on the police Voicebank: a friend of mine notified the Advertiser.) Does the following (brief selection of about 4-5 minutes) indicate a hate crime? (All said in an angry, hate filled attitude, shouting etc) "You're a f**king gay" "You're a f**king embarrassment" "What the f**k are you doing walking with a f*ggot?" "Don't you know he just wants to take you around the corner and f**k your a*se?" After I had been punched and kicked to the ground, I managed to get up and get to the other side of the road. He followed and was screaming "I can't believe this f*cking **** is still standing. Why is he not knocked out" "Get down here so I can finish this off". If that is not your definition of a hate crime, then what is? I had choice; to run away when I got the chance, or to stay around to ensure the other guy wasn’t assaulted if left on his own. I chose the latter and was able to call the police; I got a lucky break. If I hadn’t been able to take the punch, or I’d had too much to drink, or didn’t get the opportunity to get off the floor as I was being kicked at, or it was someone else who was weaker, or knocked out, I hate to think what would have happened. Thank you to the adver for raising this. I understand peoples concerns over the classification of 'hate crimes', as ALL attacks are horrific. But, when someone is singled out for a specific reason; race, sexuality etc, then they have been specifically made a target for something beyond their control; the victim can't pass it off as simply random attack. I was attacked because I am gay. How do I rationalise that? I cannot. If I was attacked randomly, I could tell myself it was 'random', which may help to deal with it. Either way, an unprovoked attack on anyone is unacceptable, and an attack of this sort in the 21st Century just proves there is still a lot of ignorance and bigotry out there. It has got to stop, and arguing over it does not help anyone.

Are you ok?

You're very brave for sticking around and making certain the other gentleman wouldn't be harmed.

I'm very sorry that you had to suffer such an experience such as this and truly hope it will never happen again.

Thank you for sharing with us what the newspaper was not able to publish, it added the clarity to really see what a horrible situation this was and what you had experienced.

The other gentleman walking with you, is he ok as well?

It saddens me to think a straight person can not strike up a friendly conversation with another individual that posses unique qualities for fear of retribution or retaliation for being outside the normal limits narrow minded people deemed to be normal.

As odd as this may sound, I am happy to see that the posters are not discussing vigilantism and wanting guns to be legalized. That would be a step backwards for mankind.

Hope all is well with you, e-mail me if you like.

swindonistani, we know the 'bleeding heart brigade' would never go along with that. Civil liberties don't you know.

Bobfm wrote:
swindonistani, we know the 'bleeding heart brigade' would never go along with that. Civil liberties don't you know.

It beggars belief that we have databases for tax collection, TV license, DVLA, etc but when it comes to dealing with real crimes suddenly everybody is up waving arms.
You know and I know that currently our police is fighting crime with one hand attached to its back, how can we efficiently combat crime like this?
how good is it to have a free society when you live in fear? Maybe it is time to put the rights and security of the general population first.

What people are not realising is that this is not a single attack. It is only because someone is brave enough to go to the paper that this is coming to light.

There have been at least three of the same sort of attacks in the past three weeks, I know because myself and my partner were subject to one.

It is not the case that they are just thugs, our attack was not theft related or anything else. We were lucky to come away with bruises but it is not the bruises that hurt but the mental affect it has on you.

To argue for a DNA database as a justification to catch these sort of thugs is akin to justifying the state control exerted by Fascism because crime fell under Hitlers rule. And just remind me, of the sections of German society victimised by the Reich, who were the ones who had to wear pink triangles? (Doh, memory must be playing up.)

'Bleeding heart liberals' were the ones who campaigned to see homosexuality legalised in this country in the 1960s - and were the ones who made it possible for people like the guy attacked to live without having to fear being arrested and locked up for simply being who he is. (But I guess Bob would prefer to selectively forget that as well?)

What sort of party does Bob think the thugs in question will be voting for next time round? The bleeding heart liberals who's naivety ensure their freedom? Durrr, let me fink... a far right wing party perhaps? (Ok, - add it to the list of things to forget.)

The fact that supposed socialists are the ones who've introduced the hypocritical swathe of ineffective but invasive legislation we've seen in the last 10 years - and who'd simply LOVE to introduce a national DNA database shouldn't be an irony lost on Bob. But lost it is, because it appears that Bob never gets past the Daily Mail level of any issue because of this memory problem.

Which is, I suspect, why he spends his time ineffectually barking at shadows, sock puppets and trolls here.

For Bob to get confused between liberal and libertarian values is hardly surprising - contradiction and confusion could be seen to be something of a manifesto commitment.

Sorry BadProspects, I'm confused, are you for or against detecting crime in the scientifically most effective way.

Read it a few more times Bob, you'll grasp it in time.

Yes Bob ? Really? How scientific is turning all our bobbies into revenue collectors.

Where was the CCTV when you need it, then ...

Quite interesting, swindonistani makes the point about the DNA data base. I make a comment that the 'bleeding hearts', like Liberty and others wouldn't go along with it, and it is my post that gets attacked, what a surprise.

As for not understanding Prospects rant, you are right. Somewhat of a contradiction wanting individual groups protected from persecution and then not wanting the safest and scientifically accurate way of catching those who persecute.

Bobfm wrote:
Quite interesting, swindonistani makes the point about the DNA data base. I make a comment that the 'bleeding hearts', like Liberty and others wouldn't go along with it, and it is my post that gets attacked, what a surprise. As for not understanding Prospects rant, you are right. Somewhat of a contradiction wanting individual groups protected from persecution and then not wanting the safest and scientifically accurate way of catching those who persecute.

dont worry, they are just hypocrits. Until one day they or a relative is involved in a crime. Then they will be the very first ones to DEMAND a database
Not that we dont have any at present.
It is in human nature to object to progress, as Albert Einstein wisely said.
Some of us have the grey matter to understand it, some don't.

swindonistani wrote:

Bobfm wrote:
swindonistani, we know the 'bleeding heart brigade' would never go along with that. Civil liberties don't you know.

It beggars belief that we have databases for tax collection, TV license, DVLA, etc but when it comes to dealing with real crimes suddenly everybody is up waving arms.
You know and I know that currently our police is fighting crime with one hand attached to its back, how can we efficiently combat crime like this?
how good is it to have a free society when you live in fear? Maybe it is time to put the rights and security of the general population first.

You're right it does begger belief. The TV Licensing database leads to innocent people being intimidated by collection officers. The DVLA database, when combined with ANPR cameras, leads to innocent people having their cars clamped at the roadside (and often subsequently vandalised) until they can prove that they do in fact have insurance (presumption of innocence anyone?). I've even heard of someone calling the police to report a vehicle as stolen and then being accused by the police of having stolen it themselves. It turns out it was due to “an error with the DVLA's database”!

What's the point of a DNA database? We may as well go the whole hog and implant everyone with a transponder at birth. That way we'll be able to record everyone's movements in an infallible database and place people at the scene of every crime. What could possibly go wrong?

Home Boy wrote:

swindonistani wrote:

Bobfm wrote: swindonistani, we know the 'bleeding heart brigade' would never go along with that. Civil liberties don't you know.

It beggars belief that we have databases for tax collection, TV license, DVLA, etc but when it comes to dealing with real crimes suddenly everybody is up waving arms. You know and I know that currently our police is fighting crime with one hand attached to its back, how can we efficiently combat crime like this? how good is it to have a free society when you live in fear? Maybe it is time to put the rights and security of the general population first.

You're right it does begger belief. The TV Licensing database leads to innocent people being intimidated by collection officers. The DVLA database, when combined with ANPR cameras, leads to innocent people having their cars clamped at the roadside (and often subsequently vandalised) until they can prove that they do in fact have insurance (presumption of innocence anyone?). I've even heard of someone calling the police to report a vehicle as stolen and then being accused by the police of having stolen it themselves. It turns out it was due to “an error with the DVLA's database”! What's the point of a DNA database? We may as well go the whole hog and implant everyone with a transponder at birth. That way we'll be able to record everyone's movements in an infallible database and place people at the scene of every crime. What could possibly go wrong?

No need for transponder, as everybody has a cell, police can track you down even with the phone turned off.
It is ok to be scared by progress, but in no way acceptable to let irrational fears to stop the inevitable march of science into our lives.

Then let science march on and let people accept or reject it as they judge fit...?(Or, to make your mobile monitoring scheme work, are you proposing that mobile phone ownership should be obligatory? A kinda communications sharia? ;-) And how would you sort out the issue of unregistered pay as you talk phones? or the fact that people lend phones to each other? or that people steal them? Or leave them at home or in a taxi? etc etc etc.)

It would be wonderful if life was so simple - but the reality of a solution is always more difficult and complex than a glib adver letters page comment.

I fear that people screaming for quick fixes usually end up clutching at totalitarean straws. Yep - our society is FUBAR, but thats because people aren't looking under the surface of the issues. They just want a nice angry banner headline, a new piece of legislation or clever technology and an easy solution. The trouble is, that the fault lies WITHIN our society - and until people start adopting a little more of a sohpisticated understanding of things, we'll just hear trite solutions peddalled about and nothing positive will change (to whit, we have 100s of new laws, ID cards, police with new pdas, laptops , databases and powers, we have CCTV etc. but no really apreciable improvement to levels of overall crime.) In fact, things will just carry on getting worse as the state takes more and more control and people keep thinking that its someone elses responsibility to come up with a fix.

The sort of intollerance which lay behind this dispicable attack is, I suspect, based on exactly the same mindset which thinks things are always automatically black and white, straight or gay, right or wrong. I'm sure firm action is needed to get rid of detritus such as these thugs - but I'm not going to allow some tub-thumping here today, gone tomorrow politician trample over the civl liberties which actually make this country worth living in.

My grandad had an old phrase: "two wrongs don't make a right". History is proving him soooooooooo right.

Best of luck Anon - I hope they catch the guys in question
and I hope, if they do, they get a meaningful sentance.

BadProspects wrote:
Then let science march on and let people accept or reject it as they judge fit...?(Or, to make your mobile monitoring scheme work, are you proposing that mobile phone ownership should be obligatory? A kinda communications sharia? ;-) And how would you sort out the issue of unregistered pay as you talk phones? or the fact that people lend phones to each other? or that people steal them? Or leave them at home or in a taxi? etc etc etc.) It would be wonderful if life was so simple - but the reality of a solution is always more difficult and complex than a glib adver letters page comment. I fear that people screaming for quick fixes usually end up clutching at totalitarean straws. Yep - our society is FUBAR, but thats because people aren't looking under the surface of the issues. They just want a nice angry banner headline, a new piece of legislation or clever technology and an easy solution. The trouble is, that the fault lies WITHIN our society - and until people start adopting a little more of a sohpisticated understanding of things, we'll just hear trite solutions peddalled about and nothing positive will change (to whit, we have 100s of new laws, ID cards, police with new pdas, laptops , databases and powers, we have CCTV etc. but no really apreciable improvement to levels of overall crime.) In fact, things will just carry on getting worse as the state takes more and more control and people keep thinking that its someone elses responsibility to come up with a fix. The sort of intollerance which lay behind this dispicable attack is, I suspect, based on exactly the same mindset which thinks things are always automatically black and white, straight or gay, right or wrong. I'm sure firm action is needed to get rid of detritus such as these thugs - but I'm not going to allow some tub-thumping here today, gone tomorrow politician trample over the civl liberties which actually make this country worth living in. My grandad had an old phrase: "two wrongs don't make a right". History is proving him soooooooooo right. Best of luck Anon - I hope they catch the guys in question and I hope, if they do, they get a meaningful sentance.

point taken, lets have a referendum on the issue of DNA database and phone tracking, let the Demos speak LOL

Bobby Bobby Bobby ! You said ..."I worked both as a Detective and as a Local beat officer. In addition I taught Criminal Law, in house. So getting my right to make professional comment out of the way".
Just WHAT are your qualifications to act as a Teacher? or did the expression "in house" mean that you only spouted your half ar**d opinions to either a "captive" audience in the nick,or to a very bored assembly of cppers looking for an escape route from "normal" poliss duties ?
I teach people to fly Radio Control Models as a hobby, but sure as h*ll, that doesn't make me a pilot does it ?
Leave the professional topics to the "Professionals" and just do what you do best...pull pints (matter of conjecture there folks !)
Mmmmmm ..ex copper eh ? (wonders just how many of the Carps non regulars have been reported for sniffing the barman's apron a tad too closely for your liking ?
My advice is that it might just be best if you stopped advertising the fact that you're ex Ol' Bill, you're really not doing yourself a favour keep trying to win respect/intimidate other commentators !

'ere, don' make I larf

I know someone else who does that but unlike you he's a nice chap and sends his clients to stay with me.

I was of course responding to a specific comment by another poster who seemed to see it OK to hurl abuse. The specifics of my former duties of course being pertinent.

Just to upset you even further I acquired an adult training certificate at North Star a couple of years ago. No one is too old to learn, except I guess you of course. Egypt closed is it.

Casual Observer wrote:
BobFM, by my reckoning you claim to have been; an electrician, a beat constable, a detective, a 'teacher of Criminal Law' (I assume that meant teachng the green-cross code to kids), a psycologist, a UKIP rep and of course the ultimate profession, pub landlord.

You claim to have worked in the pub industry for "over 25 years". You are 57(?) and it's only in the last year or so that you have learned how to spell and string a coherent sentence together.

Given that you now proudly sport bare and partially bandaged legs coupled with socks and sandals on a regular basis I find this frankly astonishing.

Unless you left school at the age of twelve (possible I guess) how on earth did you fit it all in?

'ere Mister CO....don't forget the "Child Psychology" Diploma too...!

'ere don' make I larf!

Bobfm wrote:
I know someone else who does that but unlike you he's a nice chap and sends his clients to stay with me.

I was of course responding to a specific comment by another poster who seemed to see it OK to hurl abuse. The specifics of my former duties of course being pertinent.

Just to upset you even further I acquired an adult training certificate at North Star a couple of years ago. No one is too old to learn, except I guess you of course. Egypt closed is it.

'ere Mister CO....don't forget the "Child Psychology" Diploma too...!

'ere don' make I larf!

Bobfm wrote:
I know someone else who does that but unlike you he's a nice chap and sends his clients to stay with me.

I was of course responding to a specific comment by another poster who seemed to see it OK to hurl abuse. The specifics of my former duties of course being pertinent.

Just to upset you even further I acquired an adult training certificate at North Star a couple of years ago. No one is too old to learn, except I guess you of course. Egypt closed is it.

Hmmm Bobby..I just have to visit the Craps(sorry Carps) again soon and try that oh so world renowned cocktail of yours !
That's the " Lip smackin',child analysin',law tutoring,adult educatin', calf exposin',peace keepin',self glorifyin'," slow fall down the back steps at the Nick !

Ps. My fashion adviser assures me that ankle is the new knee this year...plz take note!
Yup...for once you might have it right Bobby....Egypt is currently running at 43 degrees, and as you prob. know, that is a bit too much for Caledonian types such as myself. 'Fraid it's gotta be Marrakesh in August, n poor ol' me will have to suffer sh*t conditions in Peru at Christmas !Such a hard life being a returning expat innit?

'ere don' make I larf !

You know, if you click 'Yes' on that 'Email me when a comment is added' one can continue reading all the mudslinging and manure throwing days after the article is written, and the ending comments have nothing to do with the original article.

Though I do find some of the zingy zingers kind of amusing.

SantaCruz1973, my grandfather always use to say, 'if someone is having a go at you, they are leaving someone else alone'.

Very few are amused by the semi-literate posts of those attacking me, but hey it brightens their lives. It's nice to be of assistance.

Bobfm wrote:
SantaCruz1973, my grandfather always use to say, 'if someone is having a go at you, they are leaving someone else alone'.

Very few are amused by the semi-literate posts of those attacking me, but hey it brightens their lives. It's nice to be of assistance.

And as my wise ol' Gramps used to say

"If yer can't stand critisism..FFS don't put yerself in the public gaze"....that is if you're not an expert on just about EVERY topic open to debate !

'ere don' make I scarf !

we all saw who did it he did the same on eastenders didnt he?
jokes aside its awfull how would they feel if they got beaten up for something thats bog all to do with anyone else?
sad sad people