Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Library’s promotion of “hate crime”

84 replies

Chocolatemice · 19/01/2020 15:09

West Midlands, where it is apparently impossible to keep police stations open. Went to Blackheath library and came across a poster saying it is a designated point for reporting hate crimes.

Am I the only woman who would now find that library designated a dangerous place to be?

What is so special about “hate crimes” that they have specially designated places to report them, and yet people have nowhere to go about real crimes?

OP posts:
SarahTancredi · 19/01/2020 16:11

I don't see why having a desk to report hate crime in the library would make you feel unsafe

Because it can be based on someones personal.opinion and ergo is certainly something that could well bring arguments or violence onto the premises which likely wont have security to deal with this kind of thing it might be best to not have it along side a bounce and rhyme session with toddlers etc

Aesopfable · 19/01/2020 16:11

People (possibly including west midlands police) are confusing hate crimes with hate incidents. A hate crime is something like an assault where the victim was chosen because of their religion. Or vandalising a synagogue. There has to be a proven conventional crime first. if th's court decided the accused did not commit the crime then there can be no consideration of 'hate'.

What training do library staff have to ensure they do not affect the gathering of evidence? For example by leading the person reporting the crime?

SarahTancredi · 19/01/2020 16:15

What training do library staff have to ensure they do not affect the gathering of evidence? For example by leading the person reporting the crime?

One would surely hope that should staffing be so dire that they need a library to take some of the slack that perhaps they took their officers off Twitter monitoring as a first port of call?

Gronky · 19/01/2020 16:16

This may end up staying on his record as a "hate incident" which would be disclosed on any future DBS check

Thank you, it does say that they may show up on an enhanced DBS check if deemed relevant by the processing authority but that's still rather concerning. Personally, I'm in two minds about that issue, while I agree it would be wrong for it to be disclosed in every circumstance, it seems right (to me) if, for example, an antisemite who had managed to skirt just under the law were able to work for a Jewish rights organisation, obtaining personal details of Jewish members without any warning being given.

Gronky · 19/01/2020 16:17

I just fail to see how making others feel safe too by being able to report their harassment makes it suddenly more unsafe for me.

Sorry, what is made suddenly more unsafe for you?

SarahTancredi · 19/01/2020 16:27

www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/south-yorkshire-police-relentlessly-mocked-after-urging-people-to-report-one-another-for-offensive-a3932131.html%3famp

Police are also asking for non crimes to be reported so those reporting may well be reporting anything and everything. Really needs more monitoring than surely a library can give

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 19/01/2020 16:30

Gronky - The op and another poster said that the library would now feel more unsafe for them, I was just saying I don't see how people being able to report their harassment too whether it be due to their race, their sexuality, or being trans would make it feel more unsafe for me.

Gronky · 19/01/2020 16:33

Thank you, WotchaTalkinBoutWillis, sorry for misunderstanding.

74NewStreet · 19/01/2020 16:34

What a world Confused. Surely anyone asking for a non crime to be recorded should be escorted off the premises and advised to find something useful to do with their time; instead we have the police expressly requesting that they report this nonsense.
Then they cite under staffing as an excuse for taking yet more police off the streets Confused

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 19/01/2020 16:49

Why would it be a "non crime" though?
It says you can report a hate incident if it happens to you in the library -, so someone reporting they felt racially harassed in there for example should get "escorted off the premises and told to find something useful to do with their time" instead?

74NewStreet · 19/01/2020 16:50

I don’t understand your point, I thought racial harassment was a crime?

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 19/01/2020 16:55

Yes, it's an example of a hate crime. Which is what they're saying you can feel safe to report to the library.

74NewStreet · 19/01/2020 16:57

. We’re talking about “incidents” which are non crimes, yet given as much importance as actual crimes.

PlanDeRaccordement · 19/01/2020 17:01

74new is correct. Hate incidents are non crimes per U.K. police:

“The definition of a hate incident is: Any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's...etc”

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 19/01/2020 17:14

Yes, I agree with to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's etc.....
We agree completely on the meaning, even if I said crime instead of incident.
My point was, because the poster said they should be escorted off the premises and told to find something better to do with their time instead, who is that referring to?
You said it's motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards... etc but trans people are protected under there too whether a person wants them to be or not.
Or was it referring to sexual orientation?
It wasn't clear.

74NewStreet · 19/01/2020 17:21

I was referring to people who report non crimes which the police then obligingly put on people’s records, Wotcha. And sometimes call or visit them about (See Harry and Glinner).
You should not be able to have something which can be shown up on a dbs check entered on someone else’s record if the incident is classed as a non crime ; just for the asking.
Don’t you think that’s wrong?

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 19/01/2020 17:22

Whilst out running once I was going past slow moving traffic I had a rude comment shouted at me by a bunch of men in a van. I told them to bugger off. When the traffic moved on and the van next went past one shouted he'd like to stick a part of himself in my dirty mouth.

If I'd reported this I would probably have been laughed out of the station.

Why is shit like this not taken seriously? Angry

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 19/01/2020 17:23

Next time it happens I'll toddle in to the library in question where I'm sure a member of staff will help me report it.

Gronky · 19/01/2020 17:27

If I'd reported this I would probably have been laughed out of the station.
Why is shit like this not taken seriously?

I'm confused. Did you not report it or was it not taken seriously?

Next time it happens I'll toddle in to the library in question where I'm sure a member of staff will help me report it.

Perhaps a police station might be better, given that it's not a hate crime, since it's already a crime based upon discrimination, the hate crime label would be redundant.

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 19/01/2020 17:39

I'm assuming you're not taking the piss but no, i didn't report it. Because there's no bloody point. Nothing would have happened.

Gronky · 19/01/2020 17:44

Thank you for clarifying. I'm not sure how you can complain about something not being taken seriously if it wasn't reported (unless it's based upon previous reports of the same incident type also not being taken seriously).

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 19/01/2020 17:45

Don't you think that's wrong?
Yes, I do, but the recipient of harassment must have felt harassed/abused in the first place in order or they wouldn't have reported - surely it gets logged, police look into it and see if it's a crime or not, if it's not it wouldn't go anywhere?

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 19/01/2020 17:54

Ok. How seriously do you think it would be taken? Really?

And I can very much complain when I see the energy invested in Harry the Owl for liking a tweet.

Wotcha I think in this case the police were informed by an individual who wasn't offended/affected personally but rather was acting in case others were. There wasn't a victim.

wellbehavedwomen · 19/01/2020 17:56

@WotchaTalkinBoutWillis nope. That's exactly what the recent Judicial Review was about.

The police are lodging 'non-crime hate crimes' against people's names, based solely on the report of a person who subjectively felt it was hateful, without any necessary evidence. That's exactly why there has been a judicial review, because while there's no prosecution, that also means no evidence tested and no acquittal. And an enhanced DBS check could well have the claimed incident show up.

We await the judgement.

I don't think it matters what your views are on this specific debate, to be honest. I think it's horrifying that police can create their own rules on what people are and are not allowed to say in public, based solely on policy developed by a lobby group, with no legislative oversight at all. We are supposed to have free speech in this country, and the police are not meant to take any side in a discussion over legislation not yet passed, either - the GRA reform consultation invited discussion. Yet trans rights groups persuaded the police that any opposition was transphobic. That's police overreach on a grand, and scary scale. It's a threat to democracy, and it was when they were oppressing environmentalists in the past, too. The police are not supposed to decide what we can and can't say. The courts, applying law passed by Parliament, are.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 19/01/2020 18:02

We are supposed to have free speech in this country
Agreed, but does that and should that stretch to any perceived hate speech?
I don't think so anyway, that's never been OK even though we have free speech

Swipe left for the next trending thread