Library’s promotion of “hate crime”

I used to work for a neighbouring local authority to this one. I know libraries are seen as a safe place for a lot of Asian teenagers in that area and there has been outreach work done via libraries to them - could somehow be related to that?

You do not need to accept a caution - you can always go to court instead. It may often be better is you do go to court (though that comes wit the risk of greater punishment)

Yes I think so. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I believe in our society where we are innocent until proven guilty by a judge and/or jury of our peers - and we have framed the justice system to enable that.

I wouldn't presume to persuade you otherwise because I'm not convinced either way myself, I would point out that warnings and cautions (which may not involve a judge) of all types are recorded and may be made available during an enhanced DBS.

Agree with many of the other posters here that this is problematic. And Harry Miller's case demonstrates why. In his Trigger interview he said this
The police have been ideologically captured.. they don't understand the difference between policy and law, they don't have a legal basis to work from. The upper echelons of the police are signing pledges to Stonewall

Harry's 'hate incident' was recorded under the category crime non crime Yep. Apparently it's a thing. Meanwhile burglaries aren't investigated. This is a threat to freedom of speech, it has no legal basis and it is diverting police resources from serious crimes.

It is, however, a crime under the Equality Act 2010 (harassment).

It's not a crime. The EA is civil law pertaining to employers, service providers etc. Some random in the street isn't subject to it.

It might come under the Public Order Act I think, depending on the circumstances. But basically, good luck with that.

but should it go as far as nothing being able to be added without the involvement of a judge?

Yes I think so. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I believe in our society where we are innocent until proven guilty by a judge and/or jury of our peers - and we have framed the justice system to enable that.

Sometimes that means unpalatable people and views get airtime. And when we can try a person for an actual crime with proof and evidence, then we should. But to start making up thoughtcrime based on spite and personal agendas is not acceptable.

The old saying rings true for me - we have the worst justice system in the world, apart from all the rest

wellbehaved hate crimes/incidents are not based on the Equality Act. Why women were excluded? Possible because recording hate incidents against women would be overwhelming.

@WotchaTalkinBoutWillis sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, no less than race, disability, age, sexual orientation or gender reassignment. If abuse against all the rest (other than age, I seem to remember - also an odd omission) count as hate crimes, why is abuse meted out to women because they are women, not one to your mind? I don't really understand the reasoning for that. Unless you just mean it's not presently recorded as one, in most areas?

Misogyny is a recognised gap, unless you live in Notts, where the police ran an extremely successful pilot. Honestly, I think we are so used to misogyny aimed at women that we don't see it as hateful, because it's normalised. In Nottingham, thanks to the success and popularity of the pilot, it's recognised as such. But nowhere else - yet.

BuzzShitbagBobbly, I haven't come to a conclusion myself but how would you balance that against, for example, someone publicly making wildly unpleasant comments about domestic violence and then working for a charity which supports shelters for victims, because it didn't appear on an enhanced DBS? I would definitely agree that, at the very least, an appeal process is required but should it go as far as nothing being able to be added without the involvement of a judge?

What is my view on sexual harassment?
Well I thought it went without saying that of course you should be able to report sexual harassment too, as that should never be tolerated.
It's not a hate incident though. You can still report it if you're abused in public though.

Interesting survey of "Hate Crime Third Party Reporting Centres" in Scotland. As I suspected, most of them hadn't a clue what they were supposed to be doing or how they were supposed to do it and were, effectively "inactive".

Depending on the Council, as far as Libraries are concerned: all, some or none were registered as Reporting Centres and some that were registered did not have the staff or facilities to offer this service.

The survey also looked at understanding of "Hate Crime" vs "Gender Based Violence".

www.scld.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-issues/hate-crime/hate-crime-and-third-party-reporting-centres/

I would be surprised if the situation is very different in the rest of the UK as the most extraordinary mishmash of statutory and voluntary services have registered to be "Third Party Reporting Centres". Some of the centres in the Scottish survey seem to have admitted that they only volunteered to get the Scots Police badge on their website!

From the True Vision website it looks as if this is all part of the £1.5 million handed out to "raise awareness" of Hate Crime in (I think) 2018. There are a small number of named voluntary organisations listed as recipients of funding so I might be wrong. These other "Third Party Reporting Centres" might be locally funded, if funded at all beyond being given a poster to pin up on a Noticeboard, as spotted by the OP in a local library.

So, less "Stasi" and more like the Keystone Cops by the look of things.

I might find find my local Hate Crime Reporting Centre and say that Gronky said something hateful and I'd like the police to log it as a hate incident. I'll just pick any old random comment and say I found it threatening and made me feel unsafe, as it's my subjective, agenda-led opinion that counts.

(Obviously I won't, but the point is, my incident report would theoretically be enough for the police to register this against you and you then have it sat there with no recourse to the facts. You might even get the infamous phone call to check your thinking. It's beyond sinister.)

Ah, okay, they were from surveys plus Nottingham. I wondered if that had been expanded. Thank you - that's going to be a really interesting read tomorrow.

I agree it's not really manageable, in present form. The balance is wrong.

*I don't see how people being able to report their harassment too whether it be due to their race, their sexuality, or being trans would make it feel more unsafe for me&

What is your view on sexual harassment? You don't mention that. And perhaps one of the oldest most trenchant harassments and prejudices there is?

In all my life, I cannot imagine, or recall, ever running to a librarian to report the fact I'd ben called a slag; a slut; had someone make lewd and disgusting gestures at me; slap my bottom; flashed; parading pornographic pictures around; called me a bitch...and so on......

Women and girls have just had to get on with it........and today sex hate crime is still not treated in the same way as other 'identity' crimes; even though being female is not a matter of identity - and therefore 'chosen'.

The statistics were national:
www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/news/new-fawcett-data-reveals-gender-is-most-common-cause-of-hate-crime-for-women

Looking at the issue in more depth, I'm now not convinced that hate crime is an enforceable notion to police against and, rather, existing legislation against targeted harassment is more than sufficient. However, if it is to persist, I would like to see it at least made fair in terms of all groups being able to bring grievances.

It's not exactly a pilot, they decided to do it unilaterally

Interesting. That seems quite a big step outside the police's role.

donquixote one of the serious injustices of the "Hate Incident" system is, as clarified in the case of HarryTheOwl, is that there is no requirement for any evidence of "hate" in actions or speech.

I'm very conscious of that. I accept that the police have gone significantly beyond what the law prescribes. I agree with every word of your post.

My point is that there is law which does the same thing. The Nazi Pug video (tasteless as it is and unpleasant as it's producer may be) is very obviously a joke.

I don't think the police could go as far as they have if there hadn't been a, gentle but steady, prevailing wind against free expression across government for many years.

*repercussions, sorry.

@Gronky I don't disagree with that. (Those stats are from Nottinghamshire, are they, or is the original study now expanded - do you have a link? Sorry to be lazy, but I'm really interested, just very tired this evening.) Everyone should be able to live free from fear and harassment, and nobody should be exposed to genuine disadvantage or abuse for being who they are. It's just that nobody should be accused of something with no real evidence necessary, and that form part of their official record, either. Surely that's not acceptable in a free society.

It should not be up to the police to quasi-criminalise non-criminal action, with potential real life repurcussions, when the people affected have no right of reply, no way to test whether it's justified, and the evidence bar is so low it's practically on the ground. The judge, again, pointed out that it made no sense at all to define something as motivated by hate when there was no requirement to evidence that hate. None. Not in the words or deeds complained about, not in the individual complained about; it just requires another person to decide that they regard it as hateful. Wholly subjective, and as such, wholly unprovable, too. How does that align with the suggestion that it's a means of gathering evidence that may form part of a later case? There's no test of the quality of that evidence - it's just accepted as hateful if any person deems it to be so. Surely an objective examination of the incident is the bare minimum to expect, if the allegation is to be put against someone's name in a way that could potentially adversely impact them? Where is the concern for the rights of the person complained about?

It's perfectly normal for effective policing to be hampered by safeguards that ensure the rights of the suspect. Halliwell is a really extreme example, and an awful one, but the fact remains that when the interests of forming a case conflict with the rights of an individual to fair procedure and fair evidence gathering, the individual's rights prevail, unless there's overwhelming reason to the contrary. I don't think tweets joking that someone now identifies as a fish qualify under that heading. It's unconscionable to me that someone can make an allegation, backed by no real evidence of the foundation of that allegation, and it's just accepted, and placed on file, on a wholly subjective basis. And there's no appeal possible.

I suppose the judgement will shed some light. Be an interesting read, whichever way it's decided.

donquixote one of the serious injustices of the "Hate Incident" system is, as clarified in the case of @HarryTheOwl, is that there is no requirement for any evidence of "hate" in actions or speech.

It is not a crime

• so cannot be prosecuted
• so no need for any evidence
• and there can be no "appeal"
• because the "incident" exists only in the complainant's head
• who is referred to as the "victim" although they might be complaining solely on the basis of some imagined slight to some imagined person
• BUT it can still have consequences for the person accused of the non-crime
• even though none on this is in law, it is just "policies" made up by the College of Policing.

This over reach could not have been foreseen by the MacPherson Report.

The only way "hate" is a crime is an aggravating aspect of something that is against the law.

"Hate incidents" are just someone being offended by something that is perfectly legal - but it still ends up being recorded on a "Crime Report" under the name of the person who has been accused of giving offence, as a "Non-crime Hate Incident" ( I have a feeling that you know all this already!)

I find the "could make some people feel unsafe" aspect very chilling, as it is used to exclude and isolate people on the basis that their very presence (allegedly) might make some imagined person "feel unsafe" - when "feeling unsafe" really means "I don't like that person and I want them banned!"

It's not exactly a pilot, they decided to do it unilaterally
'Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland annually monitor five strands of hate crime:

DisabilityGender identityRace, ethnicity or nationalityReligion, faith or beliefSexual orientation
Forces can include their own definition of a hate crime with several recently adding sub cultures.'
Basically if a police force want to use extra categories they can, which begs the question of equality, why should the police have discretion over which groups they cover.

*haha clearly I am not a library. Meant to say, no I am not a librarian.

Libraries should not be in the business of policing. End of.

It's an inappropriate role for a library.

Librarians are not trained - nor should they expect to be trained - in police duties (such as taking reports of a crime).

To me, it's just indicative of the lack of respect that exists for libraries, and librarians (no, I'm not either).

It's also indicative of a failure to adequately police a community.

The most that a library should do in this space is provide information in the form of printed or visual text, available to all users.

A brochure in the stand in the foyer is generally one way such community information is disseminated.

They do though if they choose to - Nottingham does.

That's a pilot though isn't it? I rather thought the point was to look at the possibility of adding sex to the hate crime groups.

That's why they don't log misogyny as hate incidents. They do though if they choose to - Nottingham does.