I have been recorded by my local police force as 'hateful'

[Spero]

Dear All

I am posting here in case I 'disappear' from Twitter. I set out the background here if you want to read more.
twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1289109245280100353?s=20

In a nutshell I made a Subject Access Request of Wiltshire police after a Twitter account boasted I now had a 'record for life' of my 'hate'. The police disclosed to me 12 pages of screenshots that were not hateful in the least; they were mainly discussions about the GC debate that have been confirmed as protected political speech.

I have requested this is deleted; the Information Management Team at Wiltshire have declined so I will go through their appeal process, eventually to the PCC and then judicial review.

I am writing to urge ANYONE who publishes on line about gender ID etc in their own name or is otherwise readily identifiable, to make a SAR of you own force to see what is recorded against you; you will not be told.

If there are others in the same position as me it might be sensible to consider joining forces in some kind of class action.

hopefully I will know by the autumn if I am going for JR.

[ArriettyJones]

We have no flags, no parades, no police forces tweeting supportive things about us.

I’d settle for “accessible” meaning accessible.

[Spero]

Disabled people don't matter. We are literally left to die.

We have no flags, no parades, no police forces tweeting supportive things about us.

[Aesopfable]

Jebediah but disabled people are not truly oppressed, not like men. Men are really oppressed and must therefore have there needs centred on every occasion.

[Jebediah]

This reminds me of at least 2 occasions where, despite reporting often to police, disabled.people were simply left to suffer abuse from young oiks until the.disabled personwas so completely defeated and exhausted thst they killed themselves.

Police didn't seem to mind that so much.

[RuddyTrees]

@JackiesArmy

The problem is with the definition of a "hate incident". Unless the current definition is changed, absolutely anything can be a hate incident and has to be recorded (according to the police).

So if I post on twitter, or even say, that I don't like someone, a person overhearing it can decide to be offended and report me. Because they perceive it to be hateful it is, no proof necessary.

The guidelines need to be changed.

It's worse than you think. If this is recorded as a (hate) crime and then there is an 'action' then it's closed. What a lovely simple way to boost your clear-up (solved case) rates: "We report that there is an increase in crimes against the person, but XXX Police force report that they have solved more than , an increase of 80 per cent."

[Spero]

If you want to see my appeal grounds I have published them here - if this is of any help to anyone else in a similar situation, please feel free to use whatever you want.
medium.com/@sarahvphillimore/my-objections-to-being-recorded-as-a-hate-incident-6ddb7211446b

[EvelynBeatrice]

Spero
The consultation has indeed shut but the individual email addresses of each member of the Committee are on the Scottish parliamentary website. The chair is a Conservative MSP. The Committee is tasked with scrutinising and improving the legislation so it is worthwhile to do this. Albeit that the Scottish - and some national - press organisations, religious and secular bodies, theatre companies etc are all united in opposing the new stirring up offences, many of the MSPs are woefully uneducated on the implications, taking as read the Justice Secretary’s unwarranted assertion that only very extreme hate will be caught. A pro forma to each setting out the bare facts would do; personally I intend to tailor my approach pointing out to the SNP members that this is another vote loser and bound to be subject to a human rights challenge like the much maligned - and now dropped - Named Persons Bill ( plan was for every child in Scotland to be allocated a state guardian!)

[Spero]

@EvelynBeatrice

Spero - if you have the time or inclination, it might be useful if you could send examples and proof of your tweets being recorded by the police as being hateful to every member of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee who will be considering the Scottish Hate Crimes Bill imminently and ask them if it is parliament’s intention to criminalise such tweets under the wording of the new stirring up offence. Since lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse, our parliamentarians have a duty to let us know what it is. This new offence is extremely widely worded as it stands and leaves everything to prosecutorial discretion. Your example show that there can be no reliance on the police exercising this discretion with a light touch.

good idea. I've already emailed one MSP. But the consultation date closed on July 24th so they probably won't consider it.

[Floisme]

Just linking Sarah Phillimore's article - apologies if someone's already done it but I couldn't see it.
thecritic.co.uk/why-do-women-matter-so-little/

[titchy]

Thing is, if they can do this to a barrister of all people, well educated, detailed knowledge of the law, it's no bloody wonder most other GC women don't want to raise their heads above the parapet. Too frightening.

[EvelynBeatrice]

Spero - if you have the time or inclination, it might be useful if you could send examples and proof of your tweets being recorded by the police as being hateful to every member of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee who will be considering the Scottish Hate Crimes Bill imminently and ask them if it is parliament’s intention to criminalise such tweets under the wording of the new stirring up offence. Since lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse, our parliamentarians have a duty to let us know what it is. This new offence is extremely widely worded as it stands and leaves everything to prosecutorial discretion. Your example show that there can be no reliance on the police exercising this discretion with a light touch.

[Aesopfable]

Presumably there is nothing to stop convicted criminals accusing the courts or judges of hate each time they are convicted, or the witnesses for the prosecution (or defense)? It could mean anytime someone with a protected characteristic went to court everyone involved in the prosecution of that case could find themselves with a record for hate...

[boatyardblues]

@Spero

Update - just to let you know I have apparently been reported again, this time by an aspiring Lib Dem politician for saying 'only women have a cervix'.

I will SAR Wiltshire again in 3 months to check the state of play and hope these types of complaints will help in any legal action.

That’s nuts! Is scientific, biological fact now hate speech? Harry’s appeal can’t be heard too soon.

[lionheart]

I hop you can take legal action. This is absurd.

[Spero]

Update - just to let you know I have apparently been reported again, this time by an aspiring Lib Dem politician for saying 'only women have a cervix'.

I will SAR Wiltshire again in 3 months to check the state of play and hope these types of complaints will help in any legal action.

[Spero]

@BaronEssoStation

Where is this stuff held? The police force where you live or the police force where the person who reported you lives?

I assume it's held by Wiltshire and there will be some marker for other forces to contact them if anyone complains to another force, otherwise what's the point?

Part of my complaint/eventual JR is the lack of transparency about where this data is held, who has access to it and to whom it will be disclosed.

[DialSquare]

accuser*

[BaronEssoStation]

Where is this stuff held? The police force where you live or the police force where the person who reported you lives?

[DialSquare]

Very interesting indeed Spero.
As JackiesArmy said to the accuse "f you have evidence of the contrary (even one instance) I would love to see it. If you don't post any actual facts, then I'll continue to believe that you are taking this personally, which (in my experience) is often interesting"

[Spero]

"Spero - until you explained what had happened with you I had assumed that anyone reported would be contacted by the Police. The fact that the Police do not routinely do this gives the lie to this being a system to prevent "escalation" from "hate incidents" to hate crimes.

Without any action other than recording allegations as facts this does not seem to be anything other than a way of blacklisting people. It's worse than McCarthyism."

Exactly. I am no 'free speech absolutist'. I accept that in order for society to function we have to have rules and boundaries about what it is acceptable to say to others - words can be very hurtful and put someone in fear of imminent attack etc.

but the police and criminal justice system should be VERY SLOW to entertain complaints against expression of opinion on the basis that someone finds them hurtful and nothing more. And if they are going to entertain such complaints and determine the maker 'hateful' then it is simply natural justice to allow a right of reply from the person accused.

[Spero]

@DialSquare

*Spero
*
I saw the post and cutting out the language etc. It basically accused you of not supporting abused children but supporting the abusers. It was a nasty personal attack.

I have no doubt that arises out of my frequent public comments on women such as Victoria Haigh and Samantha Baldwin who have been found after lengthy fact findings to have caused their children very serious harm. Both women now assert they are 'victims' of the evil, secret Family Courts etc etc.

I wonder how the police would balance their assertions against a court judgment? It gets very interesting this, doesn't it.

[MoleSmokes]

There are so many devil-in-the-details issues raised in this thread that had not occurred to me before. For example, the lack of requirement for any investigation makes it completely plausible, in fact inevitable, that the real "Susan Jones from Coventry" would have a "record" and not even know about it:

bishopgiggles - "Re: using real names/aliases online, is there any requirement when reporting a hate incident to have any kind of proof that the person posting it is the person being reported? If i went online as Susan Jones from Coventry and posted something racist, would another real Susan Jones from Coventry get it put on her police record?"

Where this affects employment opportunities, the impact sounds very similar to police collusion with the illegal Blacklisting of construction workers, trade unionists and allegedly "subversive" civil servants:

newint.org/features/2019/03/07/union-blacklisting-and-police-infiltration-ten-years

The difference is that this time the process has been legitimised and follows official guidance from the College of Policing.

Which leads on to another Stasi-like aspect that has not (I think) been mentioned so far in this thread, ie. that the Police do not need to receive a report from a third party in order to record a "non-crime hate crime" aka "hate incident".

A Police Officer is entitled to take the initiative to record a "hate incident", on the basis that he/she believes that something said or done might be perceived by another person as "hateful" and "offensive".

IIRC Oxford Police decided off their own bat that "Women don't have penises" stickers were "hate incidents", logging one "incident" per sticker discovered. They asked for help from the public in identifying who was posting the stickers, so that these "hate incidents" did not remain anonymous.

The other side of the coin, already mentioned by PP, is that unquestioning recording of "non-crime hate crime incidents", whether attributable or anonymous, has implications for "hate incident" statistics:

ThePurported - "Why can't the police anonymise these records? These 'incidents' are nothing like crimes, so the only purpose of logging them is statistical analysis - right? And even then, the value of the data is questionable when it includes 'incidents' like someone tweeting 'Huh.'"

Or beeping your car horn at someone with a protected characteristic:

"Elderly woman questioned by police as hate criminal after ‘beeping car horn at black driver’"
Hate crime rules forced police to quiz the pensioner after she beeped at a driver who was "taking ages" at a petrol station

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elderly-woman-questioned-police-hate-13535704

Several police forces also record hate crimes against people who present as members of "alternative subcultures", eg. goths, punks, metal-heads:

www.policeprofessional.com/news/force-highlights-subculture-hate-crime/

This arose from the murder of Sophie Lancaster who was targeted because she was a goth. I do not know if this includes recording "non-crime hate crime incidents" but, logically, it should.

This all comes from a good place and with the best of intentions but, where the "hate incident" system is concerned, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Spero - until you explained what had happened with you I had assumed that anyone reported would be contacted by the Police. The fact that the Police do not routinely do this gives the lie to this being a system to prevent "escalation" from "hate incidents" to hate crimes.

Without any action other than recording allegations as facts this does not seem to be anything other than a way of blacklisting people. It's worse than McCarthyism.

[DialSquare]

*Spero
*
I saw the post and cutting out the language etc. It basically accused you of not supporting abused children but supporting the abusers. It was a nasty personal attack.

[Spero]

This thread has highlighted the problem. I see 2 people have commented to make allegations about me - I don't know what they are as the posts have now been deleted, but if anyone wants to tell me, I will answer them.

I suspect they may be from women who claim I am a Mens Rights Activist because I do not agree with allegations of violence being accepted as fact on a person's assertion alone. They never seem to notice that I have also been blocked and threatened by Fathers 4 Justice for pointing out that violent men don't make good fathers.

So I wonder what would happen if the police got complaints about me from both sides - one saying I was 'hateful' to men, the other 'hateful' to women, because my stance is that the rule of law must be respected and once found to be violent men cannot claim automatic access to children?

How would they manage that I wonder?

I will never forget a teacher I cross examined about sexual abuse. 2 children had given very different accounts of the same scenario. She said she 'believed' the children.

I said - which one? They both cannot be right.

She said 'I believe both of them'.

I hope what she meant was this: 'I believe that both children were telling me something important about what they perceive happened to them but I take your point that we have to be careful how far we rely on these accounts because they are very different but supposed to be describing the same incident'.

But given the quality of her evidence I don't think she did. I think she had been trained to literally 'believe' that 2 contrasting accounts were true at the same time, simply because the children asserted abuse.

I wonder if it is exactly this idiocy which also now infects the police.

[SetYourselfOnFire]

@Apollo440

This is absolutely deliberate and part of the TRA campaign strategy to increase the recorded hate incidents. These are now regularly quoted back (unquestioned) in media communications.

Bang on. All of their stats are faked like this. This scheme is more elaborate and nasty. (Sue them Sarah!) Usually they just lie, the media repeats endlessly anyway. When you try telling this to people they don't believe it. It sounds mad.