Harry the Owl and others launching high court battle

From the College of Policing's own guidance.

The recording of, and response to, non-crime hate incidents does not have universal support in society. Some people use this as evidence to accuse the police of becoming ‘the thought police’, trying to control what citizens think or believe, rather than what they do. While the police reject this view, it is important that officers do not overreact to non-crime incidents. To do so would leave the police service vulnerable to civil legal action or criticism in the media and this could undermine community confidence in policing.

PC Gul actually told Harry that he had come to 'check his thinking'. Breaching the actual guidance and doing the very thing that the guidance claims the police reject.

And Harry was told if he didn't like it he could sue them.

Oh man, this thread turned

2boys has literally no clue at all about what is actually being discussed, at all. Ali86 has clearly spelt it out for you, I suggest you read it, absorb it and stop looking at Wikipedia for things unrelated to this.

First of all, this is about “non-crime hate incidents” it is not about hate crime. Hate crimes have to involve a crime and the police are not suggesting that there has been a crime here. That’s a crucial difference because crimes are defined in law and tested in court so it’s clear what they are and why the police are involved.

@2boys I hope you don’t mind me saying but I’m not sure that you understand exactly what the case is about. It’s a complicated area but you seem to be picking up lots of bits and pieces from websites that aren’t relevant to the case and that seems to be causing confusion.

First of all, this is about “non-crime hate incidents” it is not about hate crime. Hate crimes have to involve a crime and the police are not suggesting that there has been a crime here. That’s a crucial difference because crimes are defined in law and tested in court so it’s clear what they are and why the police are involved.

This is about non-crime hate incidents. They are not defined in law. They are defined in the operational guidance of the College of Policing especially pages 60-63 of this. This guidance does not create law, instead it tries to give police guideance in how to act within the law. The definition that it uses of a non-crime hate incident is:
“any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partially) by a hostility or prejudice.
Harry is launching a judicial review. The point of judicial review is to make sure that public bodies, including the College of Policing, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are acting within the law. That law includes the Human Rights Act. Harry is presumably arguing that the guidance is so vague and subjective that almost anything can be a ‘non-crime hate incident’ and so it breaches human rights because there is no way of knowing when your perfectly lawful speech or actions will be investigated as a non-crime hate incident. Presumably he is also arguing that even if the guidance itself is lawful then it was applied by Humberside police in this case in a way that breaches his human rights. The College of Policing is completely aware of this possibility. They warn about it on page 62 of the guidance.

You don’t have to agree with Harry’s words to see that this challenge is an important one. TheOtherPamAyres has some good posts on this thread and especially why the police might welcome the challenge. I hope she doesn't mind me copying her earlier post here because I thought it explained the issues really well. She said:

“I'll hazard an (educated) guess that front-line police officers will welcome the action.

If you've ever been put in the untenable position of 'warning' a blameless individual, exercising their human right to free speech in a way that breaks no laws, then you will know that the guidance on 'hate incidents' was a scandal waiting to happen.

You will also know that once the public lose confidence in the police and see them acting oppressively and foolishly, then the contract of 'policing by consent in the UK' is broken.

For those reasons officers crave clarity and direction. They want the public confidence to be restored. “

I hope that helps you see why the challenge is important even for people who don’t agree with Harry’s views.

2boys - would it help you froth less if you realised you have added £100,000 to the actual figure of £25,000 that has been crowdfunded?
^
I meant £225,000. How ironic
The point stands the same though.

I can appreciate that the police are obligated to record any report of a hate incident. However, it was the lack of discretion being applied by PC Gul in deeming it necessary to spend half an hour of his shift - and no doubt at least the same time again writing up the report - questioning Harry's thoughts and quoting pseudoscience as fact that raised my hackles, when investigating other far more serious actual crimes might be better use of his time.

I will never think it's a good use of police time & resources to investigate non-crime. Not when they are so strapped, they cannot investigate....crime.

I believe you raised £250000 for Mr Owl,

2boys - would it help you froth less if you realised you have added £100,000 to the actual figure of £25,000 that has been crowdfunded?

So I could call the police now and report your post as a hate incident. The police would not have to investigate because there has been no crime, they would just have to record the incident. If they're being diligent they might phone you up for a chat, just to check your thinking.

And then the police would have a file on you even though you have not committed an offence.

Quite. Would you still see your two sons as heroic white knights for the marginalised if they were in full agreement if a police officer phoned you up and told you that your hate for the disabled was unacceptable and they'd be keeping tabs on everything you posted on social media going forward, 2Boys? Would you?

Or would you say, "This is outrageous. I haven't expressed any hate."

Which would it be? Riddle us that.

Harry is not suing 'your' police force. He is seeking judicial review of the College of Policing guidelines on hate incidents.

My mistake, I just noticed on the crowdfunding page that Humberside Police are included in this action.

This campaign is to challenge the definition of a hate incident by the college of policing. It is nothing to do with the harassment act.
The CPS has a definition for hate crime but the definition for hate incident comes from the police.

But what criminal offence is Harry supposed to have omitted? This all just waffle if he hasn’t actually done anything wrong! And surely everyone should be very worried indeed that the police officer who contacted him in the first place was doing so to check his thinking. That is outrageous!

Even deranged thick idiots like me ...

Oh dear 2boys

I perceive this as a disablist comment against people with mental health issues and against people with learning disabilities.

What was that you were saying? Oh yes ...

The definiation of a hate incident is one where any one is offend by what they believe is an offensive comment against one of the 5 above.
Once reported the police have to record it has an hate incident.

So I could call the police now and report your post as a hate incident. The police would not have to investigate because there has been no crime, they would just have to record the incident. If they're being diligent they might phone you up for a chat, just to check your thinking.

And then the police would have a file on you even though you have not committed an offence.

Can you not see the problem with this?

Harry is not suing 'your' police force. He is seeking judicial review of the College of Policing guidelines on hate incidents.

It's actually not clear where these guidelines come from but I admit I have not trawled through the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

It doesn't matter whether hate incidents are written into legislation somewhere or whether the College of Policing just made them up.

If the guidelines are incompatible with human rights law they can be challenged by judicial review.

2Boys you might find this site helpful for reading the actual law: www.legislation.gov.uk/

As we discussed ‘the harassment law’ does not include protected characteristics

Final thought, obviously I am just to much of a fool, to believe and want my local force to uphold the law. For all citizens, whatever colour, creed, sex, gender, straight, gay/lesbian, bi-sexual or non.
I am really glad they try to, my youngest spent Sunday helping with local students the 999 services do a major incident response trial, next weekend he is helping out with troubled teens to paint empty houses in their community to reduce crime, he is off to do pride too.
For the first time ever Humberside is rated good, it is getting so much better.
I really wonder on here how many of you have met, and worked with it or even have met or talked to trans gender people.
I have done bother, neither are evil bogey people out to get you or Harry.

Which ‘Hate Crime Law’ would that be 2Boys?

FGS,
Read the bloody Hate crime laws, and how hate incidents are to be treated. It is clearly described on CitizensAdvice website it only covers 5 characteristics.
For the 5th time, not sex or women.

Two local female MP's Melanie Ong and Diana Johnson have had private members bills to try and add women to the list. All have failed, maybe if faircop or MP's had backed either the law would be different.

I have explained the law, relevant to Harry's case. In every one of my posts, I haven't changed, you keep say Human rights law, but harassment law covers 5 characteristics and is there appropriate to hate incidents, including trans gender people.

The law clearly states any one can report a hate incident, and what it covers, doesn't need to be your original tweet or poem , retweeting or reposting is covered. You don't need to be one of the characteristics, you can be a parent/guardian of one or someone who works with or for them or is in a relationship with them.
once reported as a hate incident it has by law to be recorded by the police, it is then up to that police force whether to investigate further.

the hate crime law isn't difficult or hidden away. Maybe if people on here, put down their blinkers and read the law, you would understand it.

it was brought forward to deal with the aftermath of Stephen Lawrence case, the horrific case where a mother burnt herself and her disabled daughter alive in a car, and numerous gay bashing and religious hate crimes. Our government added trans gender too.
You might hate the law, but Humberside and all other police forces follow it. There are hundreds of you moaning about non crimes tweets from police forces, now you know why they do it.
I say again to get rid of hate incidents you will need to repeal the 1997 act. I don't see the courts being to keen to agree to that.

I decided to leave you to it, you won't read the law and it's guidelines or even accept they are correct. But I want this explanation to be visible to every one who reads this thread.
WHY?
Because as CitizenAdvise say, not ME, it's the law.

You keep saying constantly you want Humberside and the police to up hold the law, CitizenAdvise, the CPS, College of Police and me, all say they are.
It really is not difficult.
change the law, back Melanie Ong/Diana Johnson, not faircop.

By the way it was West Midlands Police and Nottingham who trialled wolf whistling as a hate incident, and called it a success, they even had PCSO talk to offenders and advise them to change their ways. If you backed the MP's you could, have the law you all hate defending you, but I never saw one thread supporting them.

I will leave you to it, by the way ACC Young of Humberside has tweeted why they investigated the incident, why they could do it again, he has explained it on local TV/radio and in local newspapers. He was backed by the police chiefs and CPS.
I really don't get why intelligent people, can't understand a simple law.

I personally don't care why Harry was investigated, if his poem had been report for being
It wasn't his "poem, harry retweeted someone else's "poem". So did anyone else who retweeted that limerick get a talking to by humber police? Did the orignal creator of the limerick get a talking to? If not why not?

2boys I'm really sorry but I think you're getting very confused. All these bits and pieces of legislation aren't relevant to this challenge and are making it more difficult to see the issue.

So the Gender Recognition Act is completely irrelevant here. As Birdsfoot explains, it allows people to go through a formal process to gain a gender recognition certificate that allows them to be treated as the opposite sex in law for most purposes. Its not relevant to this case. It's also nothing to do with EU law and BREXIT will not have any impact on it (it was passed after a series of cases to the European Court of Human Rights).

I think the point that you are getting from the 1997 Act is that a breach of a civil injunction can itself amount to a criminal offence under the Act and is was controversial because the initial injunction would be granted on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. That is also completely irrelevant to this case as there doesn't seem to have been an injunction here.

There doesn't seem to be anything in Harry's challenge that has anything to do with either of those pieces of law or which would in any remote way ask for the repeal of the 1997 Act (no court could demand that anyway).

2Boys The GRA grants people with gender dysphoria who apply for and meet the requirements a certificate that grants them the right to be treated as the opposite sex for certain (but not all) purpose. About 5000 people have such a certificate.

So now the law covers everything but women - and anyone with opinions about their rights.

But Harry the Owl is still evil to challenge this?

And the prospects for those pursuing a career in bomb disposal because Harry and feminists are wicked are still somewhat limited?

I confess, I'm finding it hard to keep up.

The 1997 Act does not include protected characteristics. It protects everyone from harassment, including Harry from harassment by the police.

wiki and google searches. 🤣😂🤣

No Ds1 is studying criminology at Lincoln.
Finally the haressment guides come from the 1997 act, which sets the bar for a crime to be that of civil law, not criminal law. So on balance of probalities not beyond reeasonible doubt. Which allows police and authorities to investigate so called non crimes to make sure haressment hasn't happen. It original was for racial, stalking and anti social behaviour.
But over time governments added religion, trans gender and sexual orientation to the act.
Sex, ie women where never covered by this act. This is why wolf whistling is not a hate crime.
Human rights act covers sex as all others, but the haressment law never covered sex.

Sorry, but I believe thst's why upskirting had to have separate law, why the MP for Grimsby, Melanie Ong keeps trying to am wolf whistling to hate crimes and gets it kicked out by sexist MP's especially from Shipley.

I know it is probably wrong but hate crime law and incidents, have never covered sex and therefore women. Just disabilty, race, relegion, trans gender and sexual orientation. Never just sex.

Human rights yes, hate crime no. Never.
That's the problem the haressment law allows for hate incidents, it was written that way.

Sorry I only found all this out today from my sons criminology books and wiki and google searches.
So I am right the haressment law covers trans gender, and due to its sloppy writing means if Harry retweets and some one officially complains police need to log incident. They can decide no futher action, investigate and decide no crime, like Harry, and close case or investigate and ask CPS to prosecute the offender, using evidence. Then CPS decide.
Hope that helps.
Don't blame police/college of police or CPS. Of me even, I am only the messenger who is willing to bloody read law and guidance. Blame either John Major's or Tony Blair 's government and others. It would seem on the face of it you and the faircop campaign will have to repeal whole off the 1997 act and all the following additions.

I am so sorry for being a boring fool, but sometimes the law isn't as easy as you think.