The police should not record us as hateful in secret

Imagine the scenario under what appears to be being called for. A person of colour had a run in with the local bully 7 months ago. Perhaps it didn't really get to the threshold of criminal, but it was unpleasant. It nags at them, and they hear stories of this person treating other people aggresively or threateningly. So they decide to have a quiet word with police. Now so far no problem, this information would probably be logged and may form part of an investigation at some point. But what if the officer dealing with it says do you think their behaviour might have been anything to do with your race. And the person says, actually you know I think there probably was a bit of that. Then should the police immediately end the conversation, and destroy all notes? That strikes me as both racist and ridiculous. So either this policy applies to all incidents, or all non crime incidents (and sometimes it takes a court to work which is which) or it only applies to incidents perceived to be motivated by racism etc. In other words people from protected groups would have less protection under the law than people just reporting suspicions or concerns about harassment or whatever. I very much doubt any court will agree to that.

I suspect the objections to this come down to the phrase 'hate incident'. I think if the police college have any sense they will remove that phrase but make it mandatory to record all incidents perceived to be motivated by hate towards a protected group. Then nothing would really change in terms of what information is held, but I think it probably wouldnt be seen as such an outrage.

On a side note, I think there are problems with the breadth of information police hold on people, and with length of time they may hold it. I think it's something that needs reform, but I would not support any reform that explicitly discriminated against protected groups by forbidding information to be held relating to racism or the other characteristics but permitting everything else.

Something cannot be prosecuted as a crime if it wasn't a crime when you did it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how policing works.

You don't say.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how policing works. Recording information just means writing it down. If someones goes to talk to police about an incident they felt was hateful over 6 months ago what are police supposed to do? Refuse to discuss it? Not make any notes? What if it later turned out to be important?

How would this work? Do you mean any information? So someone would not be able to report a historic sexual offence for example?

Spero replied in good faith because she's very intelligent, calm, extremely clear and fair and open in her language.

She was talking recording information about "hate incidents". These are specifically not crimes, they are incidents which the person reporting says they believe were hateful.

I think most reasonable people would agree that these should be recent to be reported.

A bit like when you get divorced you need to use fairly recent examples of unreasonable behaviour, not events from years earlier.

And this is a reasonable suggestion for reporting non-crime incidents because otherwise there might be a temptation to trawl through someone's Twitter or online posting history to find anything slightly contentious and the report it in a malicious way.

But you knew all that didn't you, jj? So why did you reply as though spero was talking about police recording of any crimes?

It's almost as though you are simply trying to distract from the main point.

@Spero

a) don't permit recording of information more than six months old, unless very good reason - my reported tweets went back to 2017!

How would this work? Do you mean any information? So someone would not be able to report a historic sexual offence for example? What about information that assisted with a current investigation? If someone provided information on something that happened more than six months ago would the police be obliged to discard it, even if it might help solve a crime? Does this only apply to information which might be classed as a hate incident? It seems perverse if someone is able to make a historic complaint of theft, or even historic information to the police due to concerns about someone's current behavaiour, and that's fine unless it involves an element of racism or something in which case the police aren't even allowed to make a record of it.

b) remove ability of third party to report on behalf of victim unless there is an established relationship and victim is incapacitated i.e. parent can report on behalf of child

This is deeply worrying from a safeguarding perspective. Are you saying allegations of sexual abuse, or harassment, or domestic violence, or indeed racism should be ignored unless they come direct from the victim? Or again should allegations only be ignored from third parties if they involve an element of racism or hostility towards one of the other pritected groups?

c) exercise some fucking discretion about what you record as 'hate'. Remember I am also recorded by the South Yorkshire police for saying 'my cat is a Methodist'. Who on earth is any safer because this is done?

Isn't this exacty the kind of discretion that the police could not be trusted to have, which is why new guidelines were brought in post Macpherson? That racist police might choose to ignore racist incidents and potentially racially motivated crimes? Surely it's better that police log all information reported to them and whether that information is ever released to anyone is based on the careful safeguarding assessment carried out by police chiefs when an enhanced DBS is applied for? That seems more sensible than leaving it to a front desk copper to decide doesn't it, not least give the police's track record of handling sexual assault cases? Or again would this only apply if the offence, incident, or alleged offence, involved hostility towards a protected group?

d) allow malicious reporting to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that if police decide on the balance of probabilities that a report was malicious they should destroy all records of it. Again that seems somewhat perverse. Surely they'd want to keep a record of someone making malicious complaints for a start, they can't do that without keeping details of those complaints. And are the police really best placed to make decisons to destroy potential evidence based on the balance of probabilities? What if more information comes to light and the balance of probabilities changes? Wouldn't this require legislation? It seems this and other demands go somewhat beyond the power of judicial review.

e) inform people who are recorded and give them a right of challenge

I would be prepared to drop e) if you give me the others.

Well that's very big of you. I'm sorry you were offended I called you entitled but, well wow, you think you can personally make deals with legislators? That you can make a demand that would place people at risk as some kind of bargaining chip? You don't get to make bargains about what the law is you know, we have a thing called parliament that does that.

Finally I'm a little confused. With the exception of your last point surely these are all things that Harry's case would more or less cover. I'm not sure the courts will agree to hear a case so similar to one that is already scheduled for an appeal. So one last question, as a barrister yourself, do you, or any law firm or chambers you are associated with, intend to take payment of any kind from this crowdfunder?

I've always been a bit suspicious of Pilates Errol, not very patient
or good at attention to detail when it comes to positioning/focusing on the core stuff, bit of a blunderer, but I'm willing to give it another try!

Try Pilates maybe?

I feel your pain Prawn. All the yoga in the world isn't sorting out my back. Still, I think I have the determination for some more digging.

Ignoring the derail, I've done some digging. With my back that's quite a sacrifice.

Should chiefs of police be required to provide relevent and proportionate soft intelligence as part of a DBS check?

Should police be required to record details of all allegations and incidents reported to them regardless of whether they think a crime has been committed, or how much evidence has been presented?

Should police have the discretion to not inform someone who has been reported to them in connection with a crime or complaint?

Because if the answer to these things are all yes then surely you can't support this case which places all of those things are risk. I'm genuinely curious what people would like to see done differently. Is it just the words hate incident that people object to?

That's a big maybe there.

And then a swerve.

Really this is just yet another demonstration of tedious pontificating intended to undermine the purpose of the thread. Which you have failed to do.

I seriously doubt anyone has any interest in continuing to facilitate you in this.

Perhaps a more pertinent discussion is do you consider from a safeguarding perspective that it is reasonable for soft police intelligence to be potentially disclosed if deemed a safeguarding risk in an enhanced DBS check?

We can both do cutting and pasting. I'm not selectively picking bits however.

To summarise
Information must pass certain tests (contained within the MP7a and MP7b) and police must
record, in the AT3, their thought process (their „rationale‟) to explain how/why they reached all
of their conclusions and decisions.
Information must be assessed by the Chief Officer to determine whether it is reasonable to
believe that it is relevant and whether, in their opinion, it ought to be disclosed. Information
should only be disclosed if it meets both of those requirements.
Consideration must be given to the Human Rights impact of disclosure and non-disclosure on
the applicant and on the vulnerable group/groups associated with the application – this is the
specific duty of the Chief Officer/Delegate of each force and their rationales and decisions
must also be recorded in the AT3 audit trail.

It's right there on page 6. No criteria or restrictions on who this is DELEGATED too.

So yes, they can delegate, but the responsibility for the final call lies with them.

relevent police chief OR DELEGATE

Honestly, the strategic insertion of the words or Delegate are not a minor detail to be handwaved away. I write governance documents. If something is not delgated as a matter of course the words or Delegate would not be in there. The audit trail has been intentionally set up precisely to permit DELEGATION.

Section 113B(4) of The Act(as amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act): (4) Before issuing an enhanced criminal record certificate the Secretary of State must request any relevant chief officer to provide any information which —(a)the chief officer reasonably believes to be relevant for the purpose described in the statement under subsection (2), and (b) in the chief officer‘s opinion, ought to be included in the certificate.

pompously lecturing a woman barrister with your googled knowledge of the law

So glad someone mentioned that.