The police should not record us as hateful in secret

[Spero]

Dear all

At 2pm Tomorrow I will be launching something which I understand it is against the terms and conditions of this site to mention but i hope you will check out my Twitter page for more information - @SVPhillimore.

I know its a difficult time of the year to ask people to do more gardening but if you don't feel like actually hefting a spade I would be really grateful if you could amplify my information.

I seriously think we are currently facing the most significant threat to our fundamental civil liberties in my life time. My lawyers have written today to Wiltshire and the College of Policing to give them until November 20th to delete the recording made about me that I am 'hateful' and to withdraw the hate crimes guidance. If they won't - we go to court.

@HecatesCats

Standing up for a round of applause here talking

Seconded

You see it as “middle class people complaining about being policed like everyone else” I see it as racist TRAs undermining a strategy to help tackle racism for their own misogynist needs. Funny how it can be viewed so differently. If you think people are being policed the same, then it’s McCarthyism all round isn’t it? Clearly there needs to be a better solution.

And I could ask how a lawyer acknowledging the reality of biological sex is a safeguarding risk, but I’m not interested in make believe.

Have a read of Talking’s post jj, you may gain some insight. Although I doubt it.

JJ - please do tell me how anyone is protected from anything by for example this tweet - now on my record for 6 years?

Why is it 'middle class' to find this terrifying?

3 tweets where I was speaking about right of children not to be raped were also reported and recorded.

Can you really not see how this has become corrupted far beyond the noble intentions of the original aims?

If anyone wants to read ALL the tweets they are linked to in this blog. Do please read them and tell me where the 'hate' is and why this makes anyone any safer.

www.faircop.org.uk/case-studies/sarah-phillimore/

@jj1968

You still seem to be under the impression that there is some requirement for evidence or test of guilt for a hate incident to have taken place.

I'm not under that impression at all. There is no test of guilt for any information the police might hold on you, and whether that information is ever made available in a enhanced DBS check is a decision made by the local chief of police based on whether that information is relevent to the role being applied for.

if you applied for an enhanced DBS the local police chief would have a look, and if they acted correctly would think well they were accused of a hate incident/nicking a car but theres no evidence it took place/it was just an innocuous tweet, so I won't include this in the DBS check.

You literally said the police would consider whether there was "any evidence it took place".

This is infuriating. The police have recorded me as a 'barrister posting hate'. On no evidence other than the assertion of an anonymous and malicious person.

So JJ is suggesting now, if I make an application to be a Judge, the police will then carry out an investigation into the evidence behind this recording?

Are you so wedded to this ridiculous practice JJ that you genuinely cannot see the danger here?

I am sorry it's so twee and middle class to be frightened by this, but there you go. I am.

Quite. Which is why I have made a further Subject Access Request of Wiltshire and also one to South Yorkshire. I am intrigued to see what kind of complaints have been made about me since July.

@Spero

This is infuriating. The police have recorded me as a 'barrister posting hate'. On no evidence other than the assertion of an anonymous and malicious person.

So JJ is suggesting now, if I make an application to be a Judge, the police will then carry out an investigation into the evidence behind this recording?

Are you so wedded to this ridiculous practice JJ that you genuinely cannot see the danger here?

I am sorry it's so twee and middle class to be frightened by this, but there you go. I am.

Spero I don't think that the poster has any real knowledge of police practice - just a word salad of assumptions and allegations mixed in with a sprinkle of google and a desperate desire to scold women. I would refer you to the excellent post by TalkingtoLangClegintheDark where they commented:

Your posts on this board could themselves be perceived as harassment of a group who share a protected characteristic that you don’t share. I certainly perceive them as harassment

Arguably repeatedly seeking out feminists / women on an internet forum for the sole purpose of criticising, smearing and scolding women are not the actions of someone posting in good faith. While the poster has the right to comment, (free speech and all that) I also find their repeated denigration of women seeking to maintain women's rights and child safeguarding as deliberate harassment. Would I want to report them for hate speech? No as I believe that the hate crime legislation is not fit for purpose as you have ably demonstrated. But we should keep calling out the woman hating rhetoric and repeated attempts to besmirch individuals and groups.

On the plus side, keeping this thread bumped is positive in terms of the impact elsewhere.

Thank you. I am very heartened by the support of many who certainly do not see this as a 'class issue'. I am still boggling over that. It's either indicative of deep wells of ignorance or is a deliberate bad faith attempt to derail the discussion here.

@Spero

Thank you. I am very heartened by the support of many who certainly do not see this as a 'class issue'. I am still boggling over that. It's either indicative of deep wells of ignorance or is a deliberate bad faith attempt to derail the discussion here.

The comments found elsewhere about people's reasons for digging are so good. I often go and have a look at them when I want to be reminded of how lovely people can be when they support others.

That was an excellent post, TalkingtoLangClegintheDark. Thank you

Yes it was an excellent post and sums up the current madness very well.

If I could report every single one of your posts that I perceive as misogynistic, that has caused me or other women distress or that I think has made me or other women feel less safe, you would have a telephone book of hate incidents come up against your name on a DBS check; not a good look for someone who sells himself as one of the good guys.

Yes you could do that, but it would also be potentially disclosable information on your record that you are the type of person who makes dozens of complaints to the police over polite disagreement on a public internet message board.

Your posts on this board could themselves be perceived as harassment of a group who share a protected characteristic that you don’t share. I certainly perceive them as harassment. You are a member of the dominant (sex) class harassing members of the dominated (sex) class: the equivalent, in my perception, of a white racist going onto a board for black people and harassing them there.

Funnt how quickly disgreement becomes hate when someone sayd something you don't like. If you feel I'm guilty of harassment then that is a crime, by all means report me.

Funny I have an email from mumsnet telling me off saying that they aim to provide a welcoming space for everyone, including trans people. I wonder how long I would have lasted on here if I accused someone of disagreeing with me of harassment and threw around accusations of bigot and transphobe the way accusations are thrown at me. I don't think is this a welcoming place for trans parents unfortunately, I think this is a place where trans parents are likely to receive significant abuse with little recourse and in the knowledge that if they act the same way they will probably be banned.

np @Butterer yes you're right, I don't keep files on people.

Funnt how quickly disgreement becomes hate when someone sayd something you don't like.

So you do get it after all. That is good news.
I will make a donation to Spero on your behalf.

@Spero

This is infuriating. The police have recorded me as a 'barrister posting hate'. On no evidence other than the assertion of an anonymous and malicious person.

So JJ is suggesting now, if I make an application to be a Judge, the police will then carry out an investigation into the evidence behind this recording?

Are you so wedded to this ridiculous practice JJ that you genuinely cannot see the danger here?

I am sorry it's so twee and middle class to be frightened by this, but there you go. I am.

If you applied for any position which involved an enhanced DBS check then the local chief of police would be required to make a decision on whether any information held on you was potentially relevent to that position and if so it would be included. It would then also be down to your potential employers to look at what was said, possibly ask you about it and then make a decision whether to employ you based on safeguarding best practice.

And you are going further than objecting to this. You seem to think that if anyone talks to the police about you then the police should have a duty to both inform you of it immediately and tell you who made the complaint. As a Barrister you must know that's not how things have ever worked. It would be incredibly dangerous and it's breath-takingly entitled to think that just because this has happened to you then it is an outrage and you must spend thousands of other people's money fighting it when in fact it is normal police practice and there are very good reasons for it - which is to ensure the safety of people who provide information to the police.

That is not true. DBS checks are processed by junior civilian staff. It's not done by the Chief of Police. It's admin.

@Escapeplanning

That is not true. DBS checks are processed by junior civilian staff. It's not done by the Chief of Police. It's admin.

Not for police 'soft' intelligence its not, the local Chief of Police makes a decision on what should be included.

You can read the process police chiefs have to go through before disclosing information here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295392/DBS_Applicant_s_introduction_to_QAF_March_2014.pdf

For disclosure purposes, police are required to consider whether there are “untoward circumstances” that lead them “to believe that the information might not be true” or “is so devoid of substance that it would be unreasonable to conclude that it might be true” [terms used by judges, in specific cases, when ruling on challenges to disclosure].If the information is―so unlikely to be true, or so lacking in substance, that it would be disproportionate to disclose, police should not disclose at all.