h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks Otto.

Ed, that was lame.
1) I never asked for links.
2) You claimed abundant evidence, and couldn't provide a single reference off the top of your head?
3) "I can't be bothered to educate you" - that's a classic Della/Annie/etc. line right there.

Wow, astonishing. So I guess we'll just have to take your word on everything you claim, until your high-and-mightiness decides to descend from mount olympus and educate us poor, stupid slobs?

"the only large scale domestic violence study carried out in the UK (HOS 191) was in 1996. That study found that 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women suffer domestic violence. "

It *is* true that the 1996 study found that 4.2% of men and women suffered domestic violence. However...

1. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's the only 'large scale domestic violence study' as there's been a fair bit of work done on this, including the British Crime survey, which is annual, and on which this work was based.

2. It's doubly disingenuous to cherry pick that figure from the report and ignore the other statistics. A quick read of the summary is enough to confirm that women are indeed the disproportionate victims of domestic violence. However, it's also true that men can be victims too, and that this is too often overlooked and ridiculed by society in general. That's wrong, but it's surely possible to make that case without attacking the demonstrable fact that women are the majority of the victims.

3. Only DV which meets the legal definition of a crime was included, and interviews took place in people's homes and in the context of a *crime survey*, which may affect the numbers. See chapter nine for a discussion of the methodology

4. Saying that an equal number of men and women are victims of DV (if true) is only a partial picture - we also need to know about frequency and severity of dv to get a proper picture.

The full report at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors191.pdf

"you drew your conclusion before 'researching' "

No, I did not. The information I've accumulated over many years of interest formed the background to my conclusion. The light googling merely supports my conclusion. Or were you expecting me to provide you with a detailed bibliography? And if so, why, since you refuse to do so yourself?

All the rest of the stuff about violent crime, and domestic violence etc. is offtopic, really, so let's move on.

"you've been noticeably quiet on the topic of a man chucking a nailbomb into a gay bar targetting gay people"

Yeah. Sorry. Interesting point. Someone who chucks a nailbomb into a gay bar is targetting people who go to gay bars. Duh. BUT that is to say, demonstrably a cross section of the population, a cross section which doesn't include all gay people (most gay people I know don't go to gay bars) and does include people who aren't gay (pregnant married woman killed and her husband seriously injured). Which rather demonstrates the difficulty this neo-Nazi idiot faces when/if he *wants* to target gay people - he can't. All he can do is chuck a bomb into a particular bar and hope.

Consider: either he JUST wanted to kill gay people - in which case he failed, which rather proves my point. OR, he was not targetting gays exclusively. Again I ask - does it matter? The guy threw a bomb into a pub.

Having said that, I'm finding the arguments put forward by TRiG regarding an atmosphere of danger persuasive. You're convincing me there is a case for hate crime to be treated differently. Thanks! My views on this are actually changing.

"one has less risk of being nailbombed by a violent homophobe if not either gay and/or in a gay bar"

See, it's that latter point that I was getting at.

"Do you believe that (a) gay men are in no extra danger of physical attack, harassment, and discrimination than straight men?"

My immediate response to that is: if you were an attacker, harrasser or discriminator - how would you tell the difference?

I believe women are at greater risk of being raped than men, but I can the difference between a woman and a man.
I believe Asians are at greater risk than white people of being attacked, but I can tell the difference between an Asian and a white person.
I believe black people are at greater risk than white people of being stopped and searched by the police, but I can tell the difference between a black person and a white person.
I believe a Manchester United supporter would be at greater risk of attack in many pubs in Liverpool than a Liverpool supporter on a match day, but that risk would exist because of something that person chose to do - wear a scarf or shirt, or shout out for the team.
I DON'T believe a Manchester United supporter with a Scouse accent would be in any increased danger if they were wearing normal clothes and not talking about football, because how would anyone tell?

"If you were 'interrupted' would you just laugh and say 'fair cop' to whoever took it upon themselves to disturb you?"

No. I think I'd grab my clothes and scarper sharpish and hope they didn't give chase. I've seen enough horror movies...

"do you think that al fresco sex is such a serious crime that you would never commit it"

I committed it last month, as it goes.

SoRB

>>No, I did not. The information I've accumulated over many years of interest formed the background to my conclusion. The light googling merely supports my conclusion. Or were you expecting me to provide you with a detailed bibliography? And if so, why, since you refuse to do so yourself?

And so those links were...what? Illustrations of the quality of some of the evidence you've accumulated?


SoRB - I really think you protest too much. You're backing youself into some very uncomfortable corners simply because of a reluctance (inability?) to see the original fireman issue as less cut-and-dried than you first made out. I'm sorry, but it simply *wasn't* a politically motivated fuss kicked up in response to some jolly laddish japes.

Have you really so little pride (or do I mean so much?) as to try and support your original position with wrongheaded and ill-informed nonsense on our societal position as regards homophobic and domestic violence? I'm asking simply because you don't normally come over as quite the reactionary you've been sounding lately.

Now now, Arnie.

I was trying my best not to get sidetracked. I just didn't feel it was necessarily my job to teach you the skill of critical evaluation. I was somewhat surprised at the sources SoRB linked - I thought he was cleverer. But I didn't really think this was the place for a teach-in on violence against women. Did I not suggest another thread?

If I *were* in a pedagogical mood...I'd have openly declared that, despite some knowledge of the subject, I'm not the authority. I'd have happily directed readers to various organisations which could put you right. If you wished to question with them the fact that women (and children) are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, I'm sure they'd put you right. And how. However...I feel the organisations below deserve our support, rather than the distraction of a points-scoring debate.

http://www.womensaid.org.uk
http://www.refuge.org.uk
http://www.zerotolerance.org.uk

>>"do you think that al fresco sex is such a serious crime that you would never commit it"

Is this the place for a discussion of the malign religious influence on our laws in relation to sexual conduct. I *think* I'm right in saying that outdoor man-on-man action still constitutes gross indecency wheras male-female is merely a breach of the peace.

(Or was this anomoly corrected in the last round of legislation?)

I've just remembered an amusing story from a friend regarding outdoor sex on the appropriately-named Butt of Lewis. There's a lighthouse there, and every time the light swept around...well, you can imagine. Full moon in Lewis.

Don't wish to prolong this, so in an attempt to wrap up:

"those links were...what?"

The result of thirty seconds' googling. Obviously.

"Have you really so little pride (or do I mean so much?) as to try and support your original position with wrongheaded and ill-informed nonsense on our societal position as regards homophobic and domestic violence?"

Any mention of violence is irrelevant in this case. People keep on talking about violence, even mentioning Nazis (yay Godwin's law...) and nailbombers. The case this thread is about featured no violence at all. It plays into stereotypes of victimisation to conflate anything that vaguely disturbs people committing a crime with actual violence perpetrated against the innocent.

SoRB

Scuse me...but whether or not it was you who first mentioned violence, you did manage to get involved in suggesting that homophobic violence should not a special case. You said so rather vehemently and of your own free will. And then when I used the issue of domestic violence purely as an illustrative example of something that might be considered (and possibly rejected) as a problem to be solved by variable sentencing...you backed yourself into another silly corner. That problem was of your own making, I'm afraid. You were too busy entrenching your position to consider whether you might not have considered all the relevant information.

But in any case - can you not see that the issue of intimidation, if not violence, is relevant to this incident?

Mmmm, to get back on topic , I would be interested to knmow what has happened if anything to the firemen. Are they still suspended? Is their Fire Service conducting an investigation into their apparent activities?

By now they should be expecting a disciplinary hearing I would have thought, and I would expect the Brigade to claim 'Gross Misconduct'

Novo

Thanks for bringing it back into perspective, novo.

From the article that started this off,

" four firefighters had been disciplined and split up after being accused of bringing the service into disrepute and misuse of fire equipment. Two have been fined up to £1,000, one reduced in rank and all have been given written warnings."

Thank you BC

An astonisingly light punishement in my personal view.

I appreciate that fully trained Fire Fighters are difficult to replace, but surely anyone who misappropiated an ambulance from it's front line duties, for similar jollies, would have been dealt with more harshly.

There is also the element of presumably receiving pay, whilst having effectively put themselves off-duty. I am a tad surprised, having seen folk sacked for more minor crimes.

Novo

Just based on my experience of representing people who have been charged with "Bringing the Company into Disrepute" I echo what Novo said. Do something like this and still having a job is a result.

Now, Ed, what you just said is plain stupid:

"If you wished to question with them the fact that women (and children) are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence,"

I never said I agreed with SoRB, I just thought you were behaving like a 4 year old by being above stooping to provide a counter argument.

See, look at Otto. He's a big-boy. Can you be a big boy too? Yes you can! Yes you can! Good Ed!

Och, c'mon. It's SoRB we're talking about. He doesn't keep his kid gloves on, so surely he doesn't expect others to?

I thought, and still do, that jumping on the domestic violence was an unnecessary diversion tactic. I thought, and still do, that he was spouting crap on the subject. I thought, and still do, that he was being disingenuous in pretending to have researched the topic deeply. I didn't think, and still don't, that it was worth engaging with him on it until and unles he wanted to talk about it seriously as a topic in its own right, rather than as part of a hole-digging exercise.

"I thought, and still do, that jumping on the domestic violence was an unnecessary diversion tactic."

And this person calls *me* disingenuous.

YOU brought up domestic violence, not me.

Irrelevant as it is to any discussion of this case, which, as has been repeatedly mentioned, isn't about violence. No violence was offered, threatened, or even suggested by either the firemen or the whiners they interrupted. I failed to see the relevance, but if I'd simply ignored it no doubt I'd have been accused of "disingenuously" ignoring it.

SoRB

Indeed I did. I didn't do it to suggest a link between that and the firemen case. Rather, in response to your simplistic views on sentencing policy (ie a punch in the face is the same in all circumstances), I was illustrating how the concept of variable tarrifs designed to eliminate a particular social risk might be applied. I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough.

But why did "sentencing policy" even come up?

There were two groups of people involved, only one of which had committed a crime. But there's never been anyone talking about what sentence would be appropriate for them. Why did "sentencing policy" even become an issue, given that only the actual crime was being committed by the anonymous complainant (note the singular, having read the story again, it appears there was just the one complainant who, quote, "demanded" to know what the firemen were doing there. "Demanded"!)

SoRB

>>But why did "sentencing policy" even come up?

In your Post 68, where you said:

>>Here's a thing - I've never entirely understood why "hate crime" is worse than "crime". I was mugged once. I was beaten unconscious, and my watch was taken. Now, as it happens, the perps were the same colour as me and the same gender as me. I have absolutely no idea, no clue at all, whether they were the same sexuality as me, because it didn't come up in the conversation. However, they did beat me unconscious and take my watch. If they'd been a different colour from me, and beaten me unconscious and taken my watch *because* of that - how is that worse? Or more to the point, from my point of view, why is it in some way BETTER for me to be beaten unconscious and robbed by people "like me"?

>>Violence is violence - isn't it? (And I repeat - there has been, in all the news reporting I've seen about this case, NO suggestion WHATEVER that there was violence, actual, implied, threatened or even mentioned. So all talk of "hate crime" is hyperbolic crap.


Agreed, "sentencing policy" was probably not a term you were familar with at the time. However, I felt that you needed to introduced to the concept in order to explain to you why we might want to treat acts of violence differently, irrespective of their physical effects.