"Hate crime" is a such a weird concept - as if it's possible to have a friendly murder, a nice kind theft or beat someone up as a favour!!!!!
This category was invented by people who not only illogical but seem to lack a sense of humour. For there to be such a thing as a "hate-crime", there would need to be a sort of crime that is not hostile or hurtful. Otherwise why have two distinct categories?
Ask yourself how it is possible to carry out an assault, a burglary or a financial fraud as an act of warm affection. Does the criminal who knocks over an old woman, steals her handbag with all her money and leaves her lying on the pavement with a broken wrist and collarbone, act out of philanthropy? Does he show her how much he cares about her and about society in general?
You would have to be crazy to think so. And the people who framed these laws about so-called "hate-crime" are just that. Crazy. If somebody is cheated out of all their savings by a deliberate scam are the criminals motivated by love? If a drug-pusher sells cocaine to teenagers, or a drunken driver kills another road-user, are they showing altruism? Showering benevolence on their fellow-man? Does it matter what skin colour or religious belief the respective parties have? No, all crime is "hate-crime" and all crime is bad.
So there is no reason at all to have a separate category for "hate-crime". The term tries to turn the police into politicians and psychiatrists, instead of what they are - merely state employees whose job is to protect everybody if they can, and, when a crime takes place, get the baddies arrested and charged.
When I was a candidate for the local council, my house was vandalized on the day of the election, but nobody called that a "hate-crime". Only some people it seems, can be hated, while others just get their front doors smashed in out of neighbourly kind feeling.
At this moment, when there are cuts in what we spend on policing and social care for the elderly, why have we got so much money to spend on hate-crime that there are special advertisements recruiting local co-ordinators for hate-crime reporting?
Yes, if you want to report a crime against one particular religious group, you will get special funding and a special form to help you do it, and a local co-ordinator paid to ...well, to co-ordinate you. If you have a problem of any other kind, you have to cope with cuts and staff shortage.
The good old principle is that everybody should be equal in the eyes of the law. It is a sound principle and it is a fair principle. I applaud Godfrey Bloom for standing up for this principle and I wish all success to his campaign to become Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside. Backed by a former Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside, Mike Speakman, GODFREY BLOOM is the only credible candidate.
As for those who have tried to claim that the distinguished Mr Bloom is in any way "unfit", they are a joke. What is Peter Tatchell but a professional lunatic? Unlike Godfrey, who is a successful MEP, Tatchell has never been elected to anything. He has failed in every election he has ever stood in. He has never been leader of anything or represented the views of anyone but a bizarre minority. When civil unions for homosexuals were introduced in 2004, Tatchell did not express any gratitude or appreciation. Instead he lashed out at the government for "heterophobia" and said the new law was oppressive and unjust. To him everything is a grievance and there is no limit to his paranoia. He admits that he has got brain damage, and he appears to me to have it from birth. What kind of a looney tries to single-handedly "arrest" the very nasty Robert Mugabe, and is then surprised to find that he is roughed up by the efficient bodyguards of a head of state? Maybe looney is the wrong word - maybe I should just say "twit". Bearing in mind Tatchell's history of campaigning for paedophilia, I am amazed he has the gall to comment on any crime-related issue.
Believe it or not, Tatchell campaigned for years to try to change a law he did not understand. When in the group Outrage! he protested against the laws on age of consent, giving as his reason that teenagers in the 13-16 age bracket ought not to be criminalized and prosecuted for having sexual relations with somebody only a few years older than themselves. This was curious, as the law has never prosecuted the under-age person in cases of juvenile sex offence. It is only the older person who may face prosecution (and even then rarely does if the teenager is held to consent). Tatchell was ranting and posturing to try to save teenagers from prosecution which they never faced.
Surely this is conclusive proof that he is an imbecile and a nutcase.
For Mr. Miliband: a little elementary economics
11 hours ago