Met Police will no longer investigate Non Crime Hate Incidents

Thank you and of course I don’t actually think you are a racist.

The alarming thing to me is:

1. What I did just then, at least until a recent court judgment, was literally enough to have a NCHI recorded against you. Not in some hyperbole making-a-point way, but literally. The perception of any other person being sufficient, with no crime attached, and the police not to investigate whether that perception is reasonable or not. Just record it. Hopefully police would have the common sense to ignore my report in practice, but if they were following the rules they shouldn’t do.

2. NCHIs were meant to be an intelligence gathering tool, but the fact they are given to the police to administer and then disclosed for things like employment checks made them a parallel justice system with no safeguards. I actually don’t object so much to NCHI type intel being gathered in the way that MI5, say, might. Actually to build a picture and and to be assessed as one fragment of evidence, with the normal safeguards attached, about who might be a risk of committing serious crime. But police NCHIs seemed to take the place of investigation not to support investigation.

I agree that if the Met is still going to record and pass on NCHIs but now with even less filtering attached, that’s not necessarily a good thing. I’d be happy if it’s a step to their abolition though.

Things that are crimes remain criminal. Nothing has changed there.
This is about non-crime incidents. Things that were never crimes in the first place.

How is this a victory? It's even worse! Now they are recording them as if it's a fact without even investigating it! Wtf???

@mumofoneAloneandwell you misunderstand.

Crimes are still crimes. Any criminal behaviour, like being verbally abusive, aggressive, causing disorder- still crimes. Nothing has changed.

If those crimes have a racist element to them, they are also ‘hate crimes’.

There are times when people express offensive beliefs and opinions.
I could say that gingers are ugly, gingers have rotten tempers, gingers smell. That’s not a crime. It isn’t a crime to say those things.

To say those things repeatedly, to shout them at someone with ginger hair, to put my face in their face and shriek, Go home you scabby ginger!… That’s a crime.

Most people think that it’s wrong to record incidents which are not crimes, with no investigation, no process, no informing the person against whom the record is made.

That’s not justice. It’s outrageous.

Okay well, you've made your point well here

I agree.

Well we definitely won't get to hear about them if they don't investigate them! This seems like a fudge to me. They need to be scrapped completely.

Racists like you should be relieved.

I’ve no evidence you are a racist, of course, but I’d still like to put it on record here that I feel you are one. The only question now is how to stop you escalating.

But you wouldn't be told about it and would have no chance to defend yourself.
I

So they’re still recording non crimes… 🙄

I don't want to derail onto public choice economics, but incentives matter. Let's say that we have a Wi Spa type incident in London. Under the current system, which is more likely:

• the Met put some resources into tracking down and investigating the flasher, and hand over a chunky file to the CPS
• the Met record lots of NCHIs against women online who say "fuck no, we don't want flashers in our changing rooms"

People are entitled to hold all sorts of ghastly views as long as they don’t act on them. The whole gender identity debacle has shown me that - difficult as might be to accept

I blame Tony Blair for this, on general principle, because he's the guy who brought in Asbos, and thereby introduced a system of incentives where PC Plod will be classed as more high performing if he hands out lots of fixed penalty notices than if he spends his day investigating actual crimes.

Apart from which, giving the police the power to put a black mark against your name for wrongthink is a very bad idea. That's the kind of thing they do in China's social credit system, where you might suddenly find it difficult to get a job if you've been overheard deviating from Chairman Xi Thought.

No. The thoughts in my head are my own, and it's no business of Sir Mark Rowley whether some of my opinions are a bit spicy. Sir Mark's job is to investigate crime. That's what we pay him for.

The things you describe are already crimes; they come under public order offences like harassment with the intention to cause distress. These can also attract heavier punishment if racism (for example) is found to be a motivating factor, as they are then treated as hate crimes.

I can see where you are coming from, but ultimately I think we have to stick quite strictly to the line that we shouldn't be criminalising people for what they think (or saying what they think), even if we find that hateful. I would agree with you that racism is obviously hateful, but there are different perspectives. What one person might consider racism, someone else might consider a reasonable comment on the impact of immigration.

Having just come out from a period of "no debate" where a woman saying that she didn't consider men identifying as women to be actual women and wasn't happy to share a changing room with a man on that basis was treated as heinous bigotry and shouted down in a furious pile on I think it is important that we can have conversations that some people might find uncomfortable without criminalising anyone. Ultimately, I would rather know what someone thinks. If I find that reprehensible, I just won't associate or support them.

So then being bigoted online is still a crime? I'm confused honestly

How terrifying, in this day and age, the thought of being the victim of a racist assault via tweet or by someone driving by, and for there to be the possibility of there being no legal consequence 🥺😪

People should be notified and given the chance to appeal but this is a travesty that bigotry will just now go unpunished

I would expect to be made aware of the nchi that you speak of with the chance to appeal

But otherwise, I would fully think that such a thing is acceptable

You cant just go around being bigoted online and expect no recumpense

Suppose someone complained to the police that you had done one of those things. The police would record it but you wouldn't know that, and the police would not investigate, so you would have no chance of challenging the allegation and asking what evidence there was.

How is that different to men cat calling women and calling them bitches when they don't respond? That's not a crime either. Neither is it eligible as an NCHI actually.
It's all just being a dick. Not illegal but generally condemned by society as bad behaviour. How are you not understanding that it was NEVER a crime in the first place. And it's not ok to record such "incidents" against someone's character without their knowledge. ESPECIALLY as it might not be true, the report is based on someone's subjective opinion of the incident. No! Either it's an actual crime and it gets investigated, or it's not and it's got fuck all to do with the police.

If theyre a racist fuck then yes I do

Public Order Act 1986
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

"Racism" can mean different things to different people. Speculating about the colour of a baby's skin was considered racist by its mother, not everyone would agree. Using certain words that people object to probably would not be considered WORIADS, that would probably cover monkey gestures. So no, I dont believe this is a license for racists in it's original meaning but it may not cover everything some people want to call racist.

Oh right a headline for not much. I hope FSU keep going though, it’s good they’re on it.

Would you be happy to discover that you had a NCHI recorded without knowing about it.

Remember the police simply take the word of the person making the report as true

No, those are actually crimes of causing harassment alarm and distress, racially aggravated.