March of the thought police Harry Miller

[BovaryX]

There is a great article in the DM about Harry Miller's case. The article describes the CPS' pivotal role in pursuing hate incidents which are not crimes. It questions whether these investigations are a legitimate use of police resources when police are failing to investigate crimes like burglary and rape cases rarely reach prosecution. It discusses the inherently problematic nature of the subjective interpretation of non crime incidents and identifies the fact that police guidelines were influenced by transgender lobby groups. The fact that the police are spending time pursuing individuals on Twitter for crime non crimes should concern everyone concerned with freedom of speech and how it is being threatened by the new totalitarians.

^I have broad shoulders, but this fight is hard. If ordinary people like myself don't stand up against what I see as over-reaching authority by the police,
who will?^

I think it's quite important to have some clarity here. The role of the police is to enforce the law It isn't to investigate stuff that may offend people, but isn't illegal. When the police are recording crime non crimes? That's a problem. When the police are recording 87,000 crime non crimes? That's an even bigger problem. When the police are failing to investigate actual crimes? That's a potential breakdown in public faith in the police. Harry Miller's case highlights all of the above. Attempts to distract from this are unlikely to be successful.

Chester Isn't that what got Miranda Yardley before the courts?

Because Mermaid's Helen Islan felt that someone might find something that Miranda had said (or tweeted, can't remember) to be offensive / motivated by hostility or prejudice towards trans people.

So a transgender person got reported for transphobia by someone who is not transgender. And ended up in court before the case was swiftly thrown out, but obviously Miranda had all the stress leading up to it. And then HI wanted anonymity, but it wasn't granted

A 'hate incident' is anything reported by a 'victim' or anyone else on their behalf, that was seen by the complainant and/or the victim as being motivated by the victim being, or being seen to be a victim of hostility based on:

disability
race
religion
transgender identity
sexual orientation

(and it would be interesting to know how the complaints stack up by category.)

Chester Isn't that what got Miranda Yardley before the courts?

According to Miranda Yardley, it was a "prosecution they were bringing against me for harassment under s2 of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997". That is a specific offence rather than a non-crime hate incident.

Ah, not a non crime hate incident, then.

I have wrongly remembered the case. As I said, I thought Miranda had been pulled up for transphobia by HI.

Although looking at an old article after a quick search (which I probably should have done before posting) District Judge John Woollard is quoted as saying 'There is no case and there never was a case'

Case initially dealt with by WYP.

At one point during the hearing, Judge Woollard said: ‘Where is the evidence [of harassment] taking into account the need for free speech? You have to show a course of conduct and at the moment we have one tweet.

Essex Police said yesterday: ‘We take all reports of hate crime incidents seriously.’

Ms Islan said: ‘The decision to prosecute was made by the CPS, not me personally and I accept the verdict of the court.’

(I thought I'd better clarify seeing as I made the erroneous comment in the first place)

It's useful to the police to have some capacity to record certain things that aren't crimes, even necessary. It's not true to say that crimes are the only things the police deal with, they deal with all kinds of other things. And non-crime events absolutely can be part of a pattern of crime. In some cases it's only when a bunch of events has been examined for patterns that the nature of the problem, and the crime becomes clear, or how to deal with it.

I can see why there might have been reason to record something like hate incidents. If it were done properly it could for example point to individuals who were involved in significant crimes, or neighbourhoods where certain problems were brewing that needed to be addressed.

The really concerning things are that the information becomes visible to people it shouldn't be visible to, that there appears to be no judgement about the things being recorded or people being approached, and maybe mostly that there seems to be this idea that it is ok to tell people what they can talk about and this is a good outcome.

The fact is that police officers have to be able to exercise some sense and good judgement and have a sense of proportion and what the real outcomes they are looking for, all the time. So why isn't that happening? A significant element must be leadership and how they are being educated.

The whole principle of equality before the law is being undermined isn't it - when the law favours certain groups.

The quote above from the article reporting Cressida Dick is telling. The idea that they include misogyny in the remit is not something the public care about apparently.

I took her to mean that they are already spending too many resources on this hate crime business while not spending enough on serious crimes like gang violence etc. Adding more hate crimes won't improve that.

"A 'hate incident' is anything reported by a 'victim' or anyone else on their behalf, that was seen by the complainant and/or the victim as being motivated by the victim being, or being seen to be a victim of hostility based on:

disability
race
religion
transgender identity
sexual orientation

(and it would be interesting to know how the complaints stack up by category.)"

@Mockers wouldn't it just!

I took her to mean that they are already spending too many resources on this hate crime business while not spending enough on serious crimes like gang violence etc. Adding more hate crimes won't improve that.

But interesting where they've chosen to draw the line.

But interesting where they've chosen to draw the line.

Maybe. I don't think it sounds true of the woman they quoted, I think she sounds like she finds them all a piss-off, and is exasperated they are potentially going to take up more of her budget and staff with stupid shit.

Good article by the late, great Roger Scruton on the modern inclination towards thought-policing:

unherd.com/2019/09/how-identity-politics-drove-the-world-mad/?=refinnar

"Thirty years ago I naively assumed that, with the collapse of communism, we would no longer see the persecution of dissidents or the imposition of official doctrines, and so I have been as astonished as everyone else by the mass denunciations and targeted character assassinations that enforce prevailing orthodoxies today. They seem as frequent and comprehensive here in Britain as they ever were in the world of totalitarian government."

I think blueharry's point is valid about individual intimidating or harassing events. People can stop short of committing a crime but still harass - for example a male man following a 12-year-old girl into the ladies' loos and striking up conversation about her bedroom or clothes. This is where we are told to "report it if a crime/violence is taking place" if we are worried about male men in women's loos, ignoring the fact that it's not just crimes we object to.