Train hate crime: what really happened?
Is it in the words?
When I’m teaching people how to analyse words, I’m keen to stress the importance of gut feel. If you come across some words, and your instinct suggests there is more to them than meets the eye, you’re probably right. The key is to look at the words and analytically find out why your gut told you something was amiss to learn more about what is going on.
This is one such set of words. It was sent to me by someone who is building their word analysis skills and thought it was worth a look.
Before I begin, a regular reminder, not all deception is malicious.
Let’s break it down
On Sunday evening I was the subject of a homophobic attack.
Within this first line, we’ve learned a lot. The story that follows will be about a homophobic attack. The attack happened to the person telling the story here, and the use of “I” suggests a truthfulness to this statement.
However, the person telling this story has put themselves as a higher priority than the attack. They chose not to say “On Sunday I was attacked” or “On Sunday a homophobic attack happened to me”.
The wording is very formal, “I was the subject of”. I don’t conclude anything from this, but it’s a data point.
Pass master
I was travelling from Euston to Manchester on Avanti West Coast Railway and went to get a cup of tea and passed a group of nine people (five male, four female). One of the men jumped out at me, making me scream and the group went on to call me various homophobic slurs as I passed.
The first thing I notice in this part is there is a lot of detail that isn’t needed. It could have been stated as “I was travelling by train when..”. The train route, name of the train company, the composition of the group, the intended purchase of tea have been added for a reason.
What is that reason? This could be story telling. The person writing could be adding embellishments to really set the scene for the story, to ground it in a reality.
The other possibility is that, when people are being deceptive, they will often linger on the factual elements of their story before going on the deceptive parts. Telling the truth is much easier than fabricating events.
I have an indication of deception in this section, as they say they “passed” the group twice. Potentially three times. They first “passed” the group and described its composition. They said “passed’ not “passing” so it’s strange, if they had “passed” the group, and was therefore beyond them, how one of the men could jump out at them. Next, the slurs came “as I passed”.
While there is some ownership of this story through their use of “I”, it is missing from the first passing event “and went to get a cup of tea and passed a group of nine people”.
This is not linear storytelling. Either there was one pass and this telling of events is jumping around in time, or there was more than one pass. It isn’t clear which it is. The overall sense I get is that this person is trying to convey only one pass, but the words indicate a confusing list of events all happening in that pass.
There is no mention of the catalyst for the attack. Most attacks have a build up to them or an event which instigates them. If that was the case here it is not mentioned. Is it being hidden?
The other alternative is that it was a random attack without a catalyst. In which case, I would expect to see that stated in the words. It isn’t present, so I conclude that, for some reason, the catalyst for the attack is being hidden. We’ll see later why that is not necessarily a malicious action.
I ignored them and moved on as I was alone.
I’m interested in what they would have done if there were not alone. They don’t say, but we can conclude they wouldn’t have ignored them from the words they say.
On my way back to my seat one of the men grabbed me and I was pushed on top of him, at which point he pulled open my jacket.
It’s perfectly plausible this happened, one of the men grabbed them, others pushed them and the original man (the grabber) pulled open the victim’s jacket.
But, some of this is told from a first person perspective “one of the men grabbed me”, the others are more passive “I was pushed on top of him” (by whom?).
I want to know what happened to the cup of tea that was being bought? If someone is carrying a cup of tea and is attacked in the way described, the tea would spill, potentially scalding either the attacker or victim. It’s not mentioned, so we can’t say what happened, but I’m interested in why it was left out.
Frightening
Other members of the group then began putting their hands on me. It was incredibly aggressive and frightening and I felt totally helpless.
The use of “incredibly” before “aggressive” puts me on alert. Why wasn’t it enough to say it was “aggressive”? Aggressive is already a strong word, why was “incredibly” added to make it even more severe?
I thankfully know a self defence move which enabled me get out of the man's grip (thank you TikTok). The group then began to shout every homophobic slur under the sun at me. Pointing, laughing... generally vile behaviour.
There is more distance at the start of this section. They don’t take ownership of the action that got them out of the grip, instead they say that knowing a move enabled them to get out of the grip.
Then comes something that concerns me about the veracity of this story. “The group then began to shout every homophobic slur”. We’ve been told that homophobic slurs had been used earlier, so why say they “began”? Why not say the slurs “continued” or “resumed”?
Often, deceptive stories of attacks contain a lot of generic detail. People who haven’t experienced the events they are describing don’t have the words internally to bring lots of detail, so become vague and generic. I’m reminded of that here with “generally vile behaviour”.
MORE: Fake hate crime words from Jussie Smollett
I reported this to the manager, Lee, who made me feel safe and got me a cup of tea and some biscuits and looked after me for the rest of my journey.
You made a real difference Lee, THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart...
Lee “got me a cup of tea”, not “another cup of tea”, or “offered to get me tea but I already had one”. Once more, I feel the cup of tea that was being bought has disappeared. Cups of tea have been a theme in this story. Why is that?
For anyone reading who thinks I’m being picky at this point: each thing I point out isn’t proof of deception. However, the more words I see that indicate possible deception, the more likelihood that there is some deception happening.
I later learned that a staff member received racist abuse from these people. The police were called but did not turn up to investigate at Crewe Station where the group got off.
This is the point I start to get worried about this version of events. This person is saying a group of people attacked them physically, abused them verbally and racially abused someone else. These are the actions of vile and dangerous people.
Yet, they say they hoped the police would turn up to “investigate”. I’d expect someone to want the police to turn up and help, to turn up and protect, to turn up and make arrests. Not to turn up “to investigate”. As it is told so far, it’s an open and closed case. This group has been responsible for multiple attacks on innocent people, I wouldn’t expect someone to want this investigated by the police, I would expect someone to want the police to act.
Tea time
Attacks are at the back of many Queer people's minds every day, including mine; whether it's holding my fiancés hand, leaving for work in drag/make up or simply buying a cup of tea on a train...
This is a revealing section. Look at the list of things that they feel someone could be doing when they have being attacked at the “back of their mind”:
“Holding my fiancé’s hand”. This is a visual action, and I know from experience how a gay person has to think about doing this in a way a straight person would never consider.
“Leaving for work in drag/make up”. This is a visual action and, similar to holding hands, I can see how it would take consideration before doing.
“Simply buying a cup of tea on a train”. I don’t get this one, I don’t think buying a cup of tea on a train is something where you’d need to consider a question like “if I do this is it going to lead to me being attacked?”
This section leads me to believe that there may have been a visual reason for the attack. Why is that not clear in the story so far? It’s possible this person doesn’t want to mention it for fear of people victim blaming and telling them they brought the attack upon themselves due to the way they were dressed. If so, it is understandable and not malicious deception.
I want you all to know that I am a strong, resilient person and have suffered worse than this in my life. Despite this, I should not have to deal with or process an incident such as this in this day and age.
Here they describe the after effects of the attack as mental - things they have to “deal with” and “process”, rather than physical effects like “suffer” or “imjury”.
“In this day and age” is a cliché. High uses of clichés are often found in the words of people who are being deceptive. They don’t have the genuine words to express themselves, so they resort to clichés they’ve heard before. However, this is the only cliché so far.
“I want you all to know...” are the words of someone talking to many people. And they are, this is a social media post to several thousand followers. It is also an indication that they want their story to be heard by a lot of people.
Bullying
As a victim of both physical and verbal bullying at school, this attack was triggering and I admit to being both upset and angry about it still.
I’m interested as to why they have separated bullying into “physical and verbal” rather than just overall bullying. I’m also interested in why they “admit” to being both upset and angry. If the events happened as described, then upset and anger would be natural reactions, not something to “admit” to.
I won't be changing a thing about myself. I very nearly changed my outfit immediately after in order to blend in. But no. Our community has fought too hard. Dimming my light is not an option.
Here we have an indication on the catalyst for the attack. If there wasn’t a visual element that caused the attack, there would be no thought of changing an outfit to “blend in”.
Considering they had said that they considered changing their outfit after the attack, then it’s quite bold to state that blending in “is not an option” (it was an option, it just wasn’t the path taken)
Awareness
I'll never do it. I'll never change. Ever.
These people should not be allowed to get away with abusing or attacking anyone; their behaviour has no place in modern society. I’ll be okay, I'm a survivor, but awareness is key, this incident comes not even a month since my last verbal homophobic assault.
This final paragraph is heavy with indications, it also contains numerous clichés.
It is true that these people should not be allowed to get away with what has been described. However, there is no sense in any of the words that anything has been done to ensure these people are punished. They are a danger to the LGBTQ+ community. There is no description of the people, no indication that the police are involved, that CCTV footage on the train has been examined to gain evidence of the attack and to identify the attackers. There are no indicators that the reason for sharing this story is to bring pressure on the authorities to find this group.
Instead, the writer states they have got away with it.
“Awareness is key”. This is vague, awareness of what is key to what? I’ll come back to this in my conclusions.
Finally, they talk about their “last verbal ... assault”. I’ll come back to this in the conclusions also.
Conclusion
There are enough indicators of deception in this story to suggest to me that there is more to this story than is in the words.
I’m convinced there was an incident. There is enough here for me to conclude that something visual about the person writing the words provoked a response from some of the group on the train. This is wrong, someone’s appearance should not be a cause for them to be abused.
I’m not convinced the attack was physical, this part of the story is the weakest. This also ties in with the line “my last verbal homophobic assault” where any mention of the physical side is absent.
I’m not convinced the attack was significant. That is not to say the attack was understandable or to downplay that it shouldn’t happen. The lack of desire for justice or need to protect others in the community leads me to this thought. I don’t believe this person is the sort who would let their community down by not trying to get dangerous people punished.
This is not a full on Jussie Smollett fake hate crime. But I do believe that the main intention for sharing the story in this way is to gain attention. The line “awareness is key” suggests that.
Questions
When I analyse the words people use, often I can firmly conclude whether deception is taking place or not and what I believe the truth is. Other times, as is the case here, I can’t fairly come to a firm conclusion. What I do say is that analysing words always suggests some questions that could be asked to establish the truth.
The question I ask after reading these words are:
Why is the only call to action in these words about general awareness? Why is there not a call for these people to be found and punished?
What was the catalyst for the attack? Why did it start?
How many times did the writer pass this group of people?
Who reported the incident to the police, and what interaction has been had with the police since?
There is a mention of four women in the group at the start, but they are not mentioned again, only the men. What part did the women play in the attack?
How did the other people on the train react? We’re they absent? Ignorant or supportive?
What happened to the cup of tea that was going to be bought?
I believe these questions, answered honestly, would help lay out a more coherent version of events.
