Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Police too PC to fight real crime

30 replies

BovaryX · 18/02/2020 05:09

In an opinion piece in The Times, Jawad Iqbal writes that the police are too busy pursuing people like Harry Miller over tweets to investigate real crimes He cites that 120,000 people have non crime incidents recorded against them and criticises the role of the CPS in creating this dysfunctional paradigm. In a recent poll by YouGov, only 1 in 9 people have confidence the police will investigate if they are the victim of an actual crime. I hope the government are paying attention. They won the support of first time Conservative voters, inter alia, because of a pledge to be tough on crime. As in crimes that are committed beyond the Twittersphere. When do they plan to start?

The case centred on the designation of non crime incidents. The operational guidance from the College of policing, which sets professional standards, says that officers should record it as a hate incident, regardless of whether there was evidence for the truth of the claim

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/police-are-too-busy-chasing-pc-causes-to-fight-real-crime-gd9qwjj3n

OP posts:
Original poster
BovaryX · 18/02/2020 05:49

Do you have any comments about the existential threat to freedom of speech represented by Harry Miller's case? The judge described the police response as designed to silence Harry Furthermore, the judge quoted Professor Kathleen Stock as evidence that the people determined to silence this debate have a tendency to accuse people of 'hate crimes' with zero evidence of hate Harry Miller's case illustrates that spurious accusations of hate without supporting evidence can result in a police record. That is something which should worry everyone concerned about freedom of speech. As for violence against women and rape? Convictions for the latter are at an all time low

OP posts:
MuddyPuddlesAndPrettyBubbles · 18/02/2020 05:39

Damned if they do, damned if they don't really. Police forces are obliged to record non crime 'hate' incidents and the intention is to prevent more serious crimes arising. The rules were drafted after the Stephen Lawrence murder. If they are recorded and investigated then yes, sometimes the human beings will get it wrong one way or another. If you don't think that non crime incidents should be recorded (and does.that apply to the recording of non crime domestic incidents, which can be extremely helpful in building up a wider picture of abuse?) then you need to start campaigning to the Home Office to get the rules changed.

Original poster
BovaryX · 18/02/2020 05:22

The piece concludes with this defence of freedom of speech, which is under sustained attack by people whose slogan is# no debate. It is way past time to stop pandering to zealots who want to stifle debate.

Free speech is one of the core values that defines us as a society. It is not the police's job to interfere with the rights of people to talk about social and political issues unless they are breaking the law

OP posts:
Original poster
BovaryX · 18/02/2020 05:17

Er, they are by definition non crimes That is the point.

OP posts:
Toomanygerbils · 18/02/2020 05:14

Do you think that the non crime incidents recorded are actually crimes then? Do you believe the Times reporter knows more than the police as to what to pursue?

Swipe left for the next trending thread