March of the thought police Harry Miller

I think blueharry's point is valid about individual intimidating or harassing events. People can stop short of committing a crime but still harass - for example a male man following a 12-year-old girl into the ladies' loos and striking up conversation about her bedroom or clothes. This is where we are told to "report it if a crime/violence is taking place" if we are worried about male men in women's loos, ignoring the fact that it's not just crimes we object to.

Good article by the late, great Roger Scruton on the modern inclination towards thought-policing:

unherd.com/2019/09/how-identity-politics-drove-the-world-mad/?=refinnar

"Thirty years ago I naively assumed that, with the collapse of communism, we would no longer see the persecution of dissidents or the imposition of official doctrines, and so I have been as astonished as everyone else by the mass denunciations and targeted character assassinations that enforce prevailing orthodoxies today. They seem as frequent and comprehensive here in Britain as they ever were in the world of totalitarian government."

But interesting where they've chosen to draw the line.

Maybe. I don't think it sounds true of the woman they quoted, I think she sounds like she finds them all a piss-off, and is exasperated they are potentially going to take up more of her budget and staff with stupid shit.

I took her to mean that they are already spending too many resources on this hate crime business while not spending enough on serious crimes like gang violence etc. Adding more hate crimes won't improve that.

But interesting where they've chosen to draw the line.

"A 'hate incident' is anything reported by a 'victim' or anyone else on their behalf, that was seen by the complainant and/or the victim as being motivated by the victim being, or being seen to be a victim of hostility based on:

disability
race
religion
transgender identity
sexual orientation

(and it would be interesting to know how the complaints stack up by category.)"

@Mockers wouldn't it just!

The quote above from the article reporting Cressida Dick is telling. The idea that they include misogyny in the remit is not something the public care about apparently.

I took her to mean that they are already spending too many resources on this hate crime business while not spending enough on serious crimes like gang violence etc. Adding more hate crimes won't improve that.

The whole principle of equality before the law is being undermined isn't it - when the law favours certain groups.

It's useful to the police to have some capacity to record certain things that aren't crimes, even necessary. It's not true to say that crimes are the only things the police deal with, they deal with all kinds of other things. And non-crime events absolutely can be part of a pattern of crime. In some cases it's only when a bunch of events has been examined for patterns that the nature of the problem, and the crime becomes clear, or how to deal with it.

I can see why there might have been reason to record something like hate incidents. If it were done properly it could for example point to individuals who were involved in significant crimes, or neighbourhoods where certain problems were brewing that needed to be addressed.

The really concerning things are that the information becomes visible to people it shouldn't be visible to, that there appears to be no judgement about the things being recorded or people being approached, and maybe mostly that there seems to be this idea that it is ok to tell people what they can talk about and this is a good outcome.

The fact is that police officers have to be able to exercise some sense and good judgement and have a sense of proportion and what the real outcomes they are looking for, all the time. So why isn't that happening? A significant element must be leadership and how they are being educated.

Although looking at an old article after a quick search (which I probably should have done before posting) District Judge John Woollard is quoted as saying 'There is no case and there never was a case'

Case initially dealt with by WYP.

At one point during the hearing, Judge Woollard said: ‘Where is the evidence [of harassment] taking into account the need for free speech? You have to show a course of conduct and at the moment we have one tweet.

Essex Police said yesterday: ‘We take all reports of hate crime incidents seriously.’

Ms Islan said: ‘The decision to prosecute was made by the CPS, not me personally and I accept the verdict of the court.’

(I thought I'd better clarify seeing as I made the erroneous comment in the first place)

Ah, not a non crime hate incident, then.

I have wrongly remembered the case. As I said, I thought Miranda had been pulled up for transphobia by HI.

Chester Isn't that what got Miranda Yardley before the courts?

According to Miranda Yardley, it was a "prosecution they were bringing against me for harassment under s2 of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997". That is a specific offence rather than a non-crime hate incident.

A 'hate incident' is anything reported by a 'victim' or anyone else on their behalf, that was seen by the complainant and/or the victim as being motivated by the victim being, or being seen to be a victim of hostility based on:

disability
race
religion
transgender identity
sexual orientation

(and it would be interesting to know how the complaints stack up by category.)

Chester Isn't that what got Miranda Yardley before the courts?

Because Mermaid's Helen Islan felt that someone might find something that Miranda had said (or tweeted, can't remember) to be offensive / motivated by hostility or prejudice towards trans people.

So a transgender person got reported for transphobia by someone who is not transgender. And ended up in court before the case was swiftly thrown out, but obviously Miranda had all the stress leading up to it. And then HI wanted anonymity, but it wasn't granted

"It states a comment that is reported as hateful by a victim must be recorded 'irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element'.
Written with the help of pro-trans lobby groups, the guidelines say police should also pursue 'any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender'."

In case anyone missed it, the guidelines now state that police must pursue 'any non-crime incident WHICH IS PERCEIVED, by the victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a transgender person'.

So these non-crimes only need to exist in the perception of one random person. No laws need to be broken; just someone's feelings hurt (and not even the victim's!!)

'Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world'...

Thank you bin

I get what you mean harry.

Maybe antisocial behaviour and the like. Not quite criminal but a pattern of disruptive unpleasantness.

The thing is I imagine a concerted campaign of negativity against you individually on Twitter is quite hard to take. Women face it all the time. And yet somehow the police don’t drop in on the culprits to urge them to check their thinking. Whereas Harry’s generalised - not personalised - thought about the trans ideology do merit a call. It’s a puzzle

Unless it's part of a bigger plan to then use that information in some way. Then it could be seen as rational. Though obviously not good.

Ok never mind maybe that example wasn't good enough. It's hard to explain but he lived next door to us for ten years - that was part of the stalking, and did a lot of things that the police didn't care about but they hurt us all psychologically and my mum didn't report most of it because nobody cared. A lot of those things were not crimes, but they were part of a crime of stalking and abuse. I just wondered, for my own knowledge, whether they'd get logged nowadays. It isn't on-topic anyway and wasn't meant to result in the third degree. I just wondered. And no, of course I don't think logging "non-crimes of bad thinking" or whatever you want to call it, is rational.

And to be clear, I don't mean domestic abuse or violence in any form isn't a crime. I just mean that there may be elements to it which on their own are not criminal. After my parents separated my dad just happening to get a job next to my mum and therefore having the same hour long commute each day and regularly being in her train carriage for the journey etc - not criminal acts on their own. But in fact part of a larger campaign of stalking and abuse, designed to intimidate. I just wondered if the same level of resources is given to those kind of 'non-crimes' because I feel angry about all this. For years abuse and violence and stalking has gone on and been ignored and minimised, and suddenly there is this much money to spend on policing the "non-crimes" of "wrongthink". I just want to know if the same is being applied to other areas.

It should be getting prominent coverage, which will hopefully continue until someone is forced to admit that what they're doing is very, very stupid and more than a little sinister.

Nearly 90,000 cases of "someone got pissed off" diligently recorded, while rapists and robbers and grooming gangs are allowed to continue as they like because you see the police are just too busy. Someone is upset on the internet and something must be done! Not about the person who just got stabbed on the street, obviously, that can wait, there are hurt feelings to soothe.

No, no sorry. I'm not calling domestic violence a non-crime. I meant do they record incidents which on their own are not a crime, but are part of a larger pattern of crimes. For instance I can think of some things that happened inside my family, that my father did, which would not be a crime, but were part of a larger pattern of domestic abuse. I know my mum would not have contacted the police over them, but if she had done so would they have been "logged" as non-crimes?