I have been recorded by my local police force as 'hateful'

SisterCellophane - yes, any contact you have with the police is kept on file and could be included in an enhanced check for employment/volunteering purposes.

This should be done on a case-by-case / need to know basis so non-convictions won't automatically turn up, but it would be good to know whether 'hate incidents' would be included in roles where the individual might come in contact with people with the protected characteristic - e.g. would Spero's "incidents" be disclosed if she was applying for a job with children & young people?

If I recall correctly, it came into law due to Ian Huntley's run-ins with the law, which were not convictions, but which painted a picture of someone who you might not want working with children.

It's all meant to be very nuanced, but who knows?

Spero I am so sorry this is happening but totally in awe at your courage and tenacity. When digging is required I will be there with my shovel.
Stay strong and know you are supported here by all thinking natal women.

I had no idea that a.) police reports that were NFAd were kept on file and would show up on DBS, I thought you'd need to be convicted of something or at the very least charged in order for this to be kept on record?? or b.)police reports can be made and data held on you without you being informed. Is this specific to "hate incidents"? Are "hate incidents" any reports of potential hate crimes, or can anything be reported as such?

is a Subject Access Request the same you would do for Police Scotland?

The basis of this was that certain behaviours that can often lead to violence are not always threatening or abusive and therefore the offence should apply where it is ‘insulting’ as well as ‘threatening’ and ‘abusive’

terry

That is very interesting. It's the Orwellian redefinition of words. So any discourse that isn't entirely supportive can be deemed 'insulting.' The truly shocking thing is that this onslaught against freedom of speech is being conducted without any media spotlight. Or public debate. It is being implemented sub rosa. How many people are aware that there is a non crime crime category in operation? While multiple police forces deign to investigate burglaries?

@NekoShiro there is a difference, yes, but an incident (which is completely subjective) can go on your file, to be disclosed if you seek an enhanced DBS.

That has a direct impact on your life, potentially. And therefore there is a chilling effect - people afraid to say what they really believe, even on their own private social media. Which is a problem, given this is a contentious subject, and women's rights are directly affected - you'd need to be stupid or a liar not to see that having spaces where women communally undress affects women, if a man can come out as trans and immediately demand access. Bluntly, there is a claim that a male has a right to expose his penis around naked women, if that male says it's her penis. That affects us. It just does. We have a right to a view on it. Same with sport, and rape counselling, and who is female when we want a smear or a mammogram, and, and, and. We absolutely have the right to express our views, and campaign for the law to uphold our rights to single sex provision. There is nothing hateful about that.

I also note that the hatefully misogynistic things thrown at women with our views are not covered. They are hateful, and clearly founded on hatred of women, but we aren't covered under hate incidents, nor crimes. Hatred of women isn't specifically banned, or monitored. TRAs can say whatever they want to us on our sex, but any response along similar lines relating to gender identity would go on your file as a hate incident. While I would regard anything as hateful as their words to us as hateful, yes, so that would actually seem reasonable, what isn't is the asymmetry.

If the test is completely subjective and there is no right of reply at all, then you could have something against your own file right now and have no idea, and it come up if eg you apply to volunteer for the Girl Guides. It doesn't matter how unfair or unjustified that might be. Trans people have found their efforts to support women's rights, and to recognise the conflict, have meant they've been reported, too.

Good luck Spero!!!

It's outrageous that our police are colluding with the reporting of thoughtcrime. I wish you the best of support in this @Spero

In a twisted way it's a sort of evil genius by these lobbying orgs who have been able to weaponise the language of women fighting to uphold our rights and present it to the public in the form of 'hate incident' statistics.

There's plenty of evidence of organisations and individuals encouraging the reporting of every tiny thing that could be perceived as an infraction or a slight.

So the public really needs to understand that when we are presented with the rhetoric that LGBT 'hate crime' has increased by X percent, a huge proportion of that will be things such as a woman on the internet somewhere saying that menstruation is a female issue or that women don't have penises.

This is surely a massive waste of police time-when we have an out of control problem with knife crime & domestic abuse...They need to get their priorities straight

an incident basically means someone has made a report, which the police have had to look i to as its their job, and they've found that no crime has been committed so have then just kept a log of the fact that someone made a report of feeling like they were discriminated against

No, it's not about discrimination, and the 'someone' can be anyone, they don't have to be personally impacted. Which means that anyone can report Sarah's lighthearted comment about her dog, cheese and Nazis and get the police to record it as 'hate' by simply stating that they perceived 'hate' in that tweet.

Re: using real names/aliases online, is there any requirement when reporting a hate incident to have any kind of proof that the person posting it is the person being reported? If i went online as Susan Jones from Coventry and posted something racist, would another real Susan Jones from Coventry get it put on her police record?

Just looked this up and wow, if they're working to that the bar seems incredibly low to determine a hate crime

It is.

It's all based on the feelings and perceptions of the complainant. Under the current proposed Hate Crimes Bill in Scotland there is no need to prove intent or pass any "reasonable person" type threshold.

Interestingly when I looked at the impact assessment for the proposed Bill I found this...

There was some concern among stakeholders that the extension of stirring up offences may not go far enough in providing the level of protection required to the LGBTI community. The basis of this was that certain behaviours that can often lead to violence are not always threatening or abusive and therefore the offence should apply where it is ‘insulting’ as well as ‘threatening’ and ‘abusive’.

The stakeholders were the following:

Equality Network/Scottish Trans Alliance
LGBT Health and Wellbeing
LGBT Youth Scotland
Scottish Bi+ Network
Stonewall Scotland

So the usual suspects are looking to have the bar set as low as possible so "stirring up" would include "insulting"...I wonder why they were pushing for that?

As pps have already said JKR would very probably fall foul of this proposed law change with a possible 7 year jail term to look forward to.

It is utterly terrifying.

Spero Gie them laldy!!! as we say round these parts..

My favourite 'hate tweet' was - my dog will call me a Nazi for cheese.
With a picture of my dog looking sad.

It's difficult to imagine who was the victim in this particular non-crime hate incident. Does the police record say which group you were supposed to have targeted here?

So I've had a look over Google and ended up here: fullfact.org/crime/hate-incidents-arent-same-hate-crimes/

So an incident basically means someone has made a report, which the police have had to look i to as its their job, and they've found that no crime has been committed so have then just kept a log of the fact that someone made a report of feeling like they were discriminated against? And it stays on your record incase it's something that happens a lot so they can monitor future escalations of hate crime? I read one article where a police chief said they like to keep them so they can monitor if hate crimes could bubble up in areas.

So it's like if I was at work and it's the differences between me having a counseling vs me having a formal disciplinary?

Happy to dig if and when that becomes necessary, @Spero. And that goes for anyone who is hit by this who has not, in fact, been hateful towards anyone/any group. Having views on women's rights is not hateful, fgs. And having clear and solid views on safeguarding kids should be the norm.

I've just read my last response back and it makes sound sound like a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

Because until you dig into this stuff, it really is difficult to comprehend that the police are acting like this and that there is, largely, silence from the media (side eyes the guardian)

There's no media outrage because the word "hate" is so evocative. It immediately puts in your mind's eye a picture of frothing, spitting, spiteful rage - hate is clearly wrong = a hateful person is a bad person.

And we can all think of hate incidents which would be completely beyond the pale - woman shouting at an immigrant on the bus who cowers under the hate; Jewish person exposed to endless innuendo about bankers; transwoman pointed at and mocked in the street - surely recording this is valuable?

You can see how easy it would be to twist any resistance to the concept as a hate incident in itself .

Of course, STA and their ilk are deliberately encouraging the reporting of hate incidents on one hand and the eliding the distinction between this and hate crime with the other so that the picture of most oppressed and therefore in need of most protection is reinforced.

It's difficult to comprehend that there is now this concept called 'hate incident' which the police themselves define as a non-crime and which allows anyone - literally anyone and not just the 'victim' - to report 'perceived hate' towards someone. It's so ludicrous

It is in the territory of Kafka and Orwell. It is hard to comprehend that this is actually happening in a Western democracy as PP have said. Where is the media outrage about this?

Someone could report NekoShiro just for posting on this board, which people claim is a “hotbed of transphobia”. Given NekoShiro is partaking in perpetuating this, by posting and using Mumsnet as a platform, many people find that offensive (some of whom monitor, waves 👋).

These are shocking Stasi-techniques.
I'm in awe of you, Spero!