Does anyone else not care if a 'hate incident' is recorded against them?

I fear you have a point. Scary times. I found that comment of his incredibly offensive but women don't count it seems.

Remember Keir Starmer on the statement "only women have a cervix". His stance - "It is something that shouldn’t be said, it is not right.”

I repeat, "It Is something that shouldn't be said."

How far is it from "something that shouldn't be said" to "something it's illegal to say"?

Who knows

I wonder how long it will take for there to be a test case

Wrong thread!! Sorry!

Are you living in the UK? Cos you might need to rethink that if you're going to be petulant about rain.

It concerns me a lot due to first paragraph generally

And for many people in other paragraph

I don’t make hateful comments or indeed say anything targeting vulnerable groups so I think 99.9% of people will be fine.

The complacency of people who say this makes me weep.

Do you not understand that what is deemed acceptable changes all the time and is highly subjective? 15 years ago, there was nothing controversial about saying that only a woman can give birth, for example. Now JK Rowling (amongst others) is vilified for this simple statement of fact.

Somebody who is 60+ will have grown up in a world when the term 'coloured people' was considered the correct and respectful term for black people (if you don't believe this, check out the NAACP). If they are not keeping up with the evolution of language, or if they just have a senior moment, they could easily offend someone accidentally.

"Queer" is highly controversial, with some gay people loathing it as a term of abuse, and others proudly reclaiming it.

Everyone of us uses language that is offensive to someone.

Even better, this is coming just as Police Scotland "will no longer investigate every crime reported to them... thousands of ‘minor’ offences such as some break-ins, vandalism and thefts where there are no leads or CCTV evidence may be written off."

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24139935.police-not-investigate-crime-scotland-april/

What if you have a name that's unusual? The whole thing sounds sinister to me. Surely it's an infringement of human rights?

Have you seen the other thread about Murdo Fraser MSP? I think it's best if I simply repeat from it an illuminating post from there by@ArabellaScott:
..................................................................................................................................

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/03/scotlands-hate-speech-act-and-abuse-of-process/

'It is a well-established principle in Scots law that anything published on the internet, which can be read in Scotland, is deemed to be published in Scotland. The act of publication is not deemed to be the person actually publishing the item, let us say in Tahiti. The act of publication is deemed to be the reader opening the item on their device in Scotland.
(To emphasise the total illogic of this approach, while it is the person opening it which constitutes the act of publication, it is not the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it but the original creator/publisher. To emphasise the state’s dishonest thinking still more: if however what is being opened is not, say, libel or hate speech but rather illegal pornography, then it is in that case the person who opened it who is deemed to have published it.)
So a person in Tahiti who publishes a tweet which is opened by and offends somebody in Scotland because it offends a protected characteristic, had committed a crimein Scotland, even though they never left their home in Tahiti and may never have been anywhere near Scotland.
I know this sounds completely crazy, but I do assure you it is absolutely true. As kindly confirmed here by the Dean of Faculty.'

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1768733847171010678

'Scottish law holds that anything on social media which can be read in Scotland is published in Scotland. Clive Thomson was jailed for contempt of court for material he published in France. I have been questioned by police over material I published in Iceland. Those were not for hate crime, but the Scottish Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021, which has severe implications for freedom of speech, will be enforced from 1 April. The principle that anything that can be read online in Scotland is published in Scotland - which I strongly oppose as ridiculous - is the same as that which fuels the London libel industry. It has nothing to do with residence, which is why you have had Russian oligarchs sue each other in London. I can see nothing in the Act which limits this principle. Therefore any alleged hate against a protected characteristic, published by anybody anywhere in the world, can be reported to Scottish police by someone who read it in Scotland, from 1 April.'

This is confirmed by Roddy Dunlop, Faculty of Dean of Advocates (Scottish legal bod, KC)

I too have an unusual name. If you've ever been on the electoral register, you can reasonably easily be found.
I use 192.com to find people when needed. If I can use it, so can the police. And I bet they have better systems.

I now need an enhanced DBS, I cannot now take the chance of saying much of anything about anything. I cant afford to fight this, I've 20 more years of work, and a previous stalker, so frankly don't want my name all over the papers.
So yeah chilling.

This!!!

I agree with this. I wonder what people think happened in the DDR because it is very recent history and the ramifications are still rippling through Germany.

Wonder how long it will take for Wild Womyn to be reported for causing hurt feelz?

I wonder if those who are not bothered by ending up on this ridiculous list could repeatedly report themselves for ´hate crimes’ (in the same way as anyone could have themselves in for a real crime)? It would be awfully unfortunate if the system got completely clogged up.

i can also highly recommend https://wildwomynworkshop.com/tag-product/stickers/ which have a tendency to leap out of my gender critical handbag whenever I go to a public loo. Not a hate crime - they don’t just identify as magic they really are!

Just to be clear. When I said I don’t care about having one recorded it’s because I don’t need checks for employment. I do not think the notion of NCHI recording is in anyway compatible with the basic tenets of open justice.

I have the privilege of being able to kick up holy hell if I discovered one had been recorded. I appreciate not everyone, by a wide margin, are in that boat!

We’re in 1984, such fucking bullshit

If you can't see the problem with the State recording about allegations about you that require no evidence, are just a feeling in someone else's head, and that you may not even know about, then I don't know what to say to you.

I don't know why we bothered with the Cold War. So many Brits would apparently have been perfectly happy in East Germany.

I don’t make hateful comments or indeed say anything targeting vulnerable groups so I think 99.9% of people will be fine.

Who cares if some retiree wants to be racist or spend the last of their deluded days rattling off against “men” in dresses to their carers? A police officer who might be called in to take a report for a trans person facing DV though? Unacceptable.

I am very worried about extension of government powers but yes a lot of you should be on a list. It’s a tricky one.

Also without reading the thread how do I know this isn’t you guys doing BLM stuff or holding the govt. to account over ableism? Pathetic.

I'll admit to not having done my homework on this utterly unworkable nuttery, but what's this about not even having to live in Scotland for it to affect you?? Does that mean that non-residents can be guilty of the CRIME if committed in Scotland (as I suppose would be the case with any crime) or that mischief-makers can somehow report 'crimes' committed over the border?? Please elucidate!

Not actually true.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice-on-the-recording-and-retention-of-personal-data-accessible

72. If the record is being considered for disclosure on an enhanced criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), the Chief Officer making the decision is required by section 113B of the Police Act 1997 to have regard to guidance issued by the Home Secretary: Statutory Disclosure Guidance. Such information should be disclosed only where the Chief Officer reasonably believes it to be relevant for the purpose for which the certificate is sought and that it ought to be included.

It matters to me. I shoot,.mostly clay pigeons. I have to be whiter than white. Police can deny you a licence for a lot of reasons. Why should I give up my sport because I won't say men in dresses are women?

In my family, we're all volunteer sports coaches of one sort or another.

Volunteering won't be worth the stress or worry. It would only take one mardy child or teenager.

Too great a risk.

I've never forgotten reading this on MN FWR. I've no idea what is disclosed or recorded where and I've no intention of turning my life upside down for the risk. We all enjoy coaching but it's not worth this level of uncertainty. We don't have social credit systems of the sort commonly attributed to China - yet. But Gove's recent definitions and using intelligence to block meetings etc. means it's not infeasible.

EDBS can show surprising things unless you apply to have items omitted: Driven to suicide as a result of an enhanced DBS certificate – the problem with the disclosure of police intelligence

www.the-record.org.uk/unlock-people-with-convictions/driven-to-suicide-as-a-result-of-an-enhanced-dbs-certificate/

[X] got the job and was told that she would need an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. [She was allowed to start work as long as she applied for it immediately.]

Several weeks later her DBS certificate arrived and on it, disclosed under the ‘additional information’ section was her Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) for a public order offence. [X] had received this whilst she was at university and on a night out with three of her fellow students...[X] had a strange feeling [men they passed] might be undercover police officers so jokingly as she walked past them, she made a pig-like noise.

One of them grabbed [X's] arm and told her that she had committed a public order offence by ‘making a pig-like noise in the vicinity of a police officer.’ They told her that if she accepted a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) and a fine she would avoid having to go to court. Believing that this was her best option, [X] accepted the PND.

[X] thought that was the end of the matter but of course as her enhanced DBS certificate was to show it most certainly was not. When she took the document to her employer, they told her that she’d acted dishonestly in not disclosing the PND and she was instantly dismissed.

You know the rest from the title of the report.

In and of itself I’d just roll my eyes at the stupidity of it, but I have a very large concern around where is this all going to end? It’s the never ending creep into our lives which I find so worrying and (as a nation) we’re sleep walking our way into it.