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.

How would this work? Do you mean any information? So someone would not be able to report a historic sexual offence for example?

Spero replied in good faith because she's very intelligent, calm, extremely clear and fair and open in her language.

She was talking recording information about "hate incidents". These are specifically not crimes, they are incidents which the person reporting says they believe were hateful.

I think most reasonable people would agree that these should be recent to be reported.

A bit like when you get divorced you need to use fairly recent examples of unreasonable behaviour, not events from years earlier.

And this is a reasonable suggestion for reporting non-crime incidents because otherwise there might be a temptation to trawl through someone's Twitter or online posting history to find anything slightly contentious and the report it in a malicious way.

But you knew all that didn't you, jj? So why did you reply as though spero was talking about police recording of any crimes?

It's almost as though you are simply trying to distract from the main point.

@testing987654321

How would this work? Do you mean any information? So someone would not be able to report a historic sexual offence for example?

Spero replied in good faith because she's very intelligent, calm, extremely clear and fair and open in her language.

She was talking recording information about "hate incidents". These are specifically not crimes, they are incidents which the person reporting says they believe were hateful.

I think most reasonable people would agree that these should be recent to be reported.

A bit like when you get divorced you need to use fairly recent examples of unreasonable behaviour, not events from years earlier.

And this is a reasonable suggestion for reporting non-crime incidents because otherwise there might be a temptation to trawl through someone's Twitter or online posting history to find anything slightly contentious and the report it in a malicious way.

But you knew all that didn't you, jj? So why did you reply as though spero was talking about police recording of any crimes?

It's almost as though you are simply trying to distract from the main point.

I don't see how you can cordon off one groups of incidents, about which evidence must be destroyed/ignored if it was a historic incident or allegation, but keep everything else. As I said, that would mean the police retaining the power they have to record information on any kind of incident except ones that were perceived to involve hostility towards a protected group. That would seem discriminatory for a start.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how policing works. Recording information just means writing it down. If someones goes to talk to police about an incident they felt was hateful over 6 months ago what are police supposed to do? Refuse to discuss it? Not make any notes? What if it later turned out to be important?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how policing works.

You don't say.

Something cannot be prosecuted as a crime if it wasn't a crime when you did it.

@testing987654321

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how policing works.

You don't say.

Well it doesn't seem to be fully understood that the police can hold any information on you, no matter how long ago any incidents took place, including non crime information and just general intelligence - who your friends are, what political affiliations you might have, what car you drive etc. This has always been the case.

Imagine the scenario under what appears to be being called for. A person of colour had a run in with the local bully 7 months ago. Perhaps it didn't really get to the threshold of criminal, but it was unpleasant. It nags at them, and they hear stories of this person treating other people aggresively or threateningly. So they decide to have a quiet word with police. Now so far no problem, this information would probably be logged and may form part of an investigation at some point. But what if the officer dealing with it says do you think their behaviour might have been anything to do with your race. And the person says, actually you know I think there probably was a bit of that. Then should the police immediately end the conversation, and destroy all notes? That strikes me as both racist and ridiculous. So either this policy applies to all incidents, or all non crime incidents (and sometimes it takes a court to work which is which) or it only applies to incidents perceived to be motivated by racism etc. In other words people from protected groups would have less protection under the law than people just reporting suspicions or concerns about harassment or whatever. I very much doubt any court will agree to that.

I suspect the objections to this come down to the phrase 'hate incident'. I think if the police college have any sense they will remove that phrase but make it mandatory to record all incidents perceived to be motivated by hate towards a protected group. Then nothing would really change in terms of what information is held, but I think it probably wouldnt be seen as such an outrage.

On a side note, I think there are problems with the breadth of information police hold on people, and with length of time they may hold it. I think it's something that needs reform, but I would not support any reform that explicitly discriminated against protected groups by forbidding information to be held relating to racism or the other characteristics but permitting everything else.

There has been a clear difference between 'intelligence' and a crime report, right up until hate incidents became dependent on the feelings of the person making the report.

Kind of posters here to contribute. Love the comments.

If 10 people report a rape does that mean 10 rapes took place?

Why does a hate incident become 10 incidents if there are 10 reports made?

@testing987654321

How would this work? Do you mean any information? So someone would not be able to report a historic sexual offence for example?

Spero replied in good faith because she's very intelligent, calm, extremely clear and fair and open in her language.

She was talking recording information about "hate incidents". These are specifically not crimes, they are incidents which the person reporting says they believe were hateful.

I think most reasonable people would agree that these should be recent to be reported.

A bit like when you get divorced you need to use fairly recent examples of unreasonable behaviour, not events from years earlier.

And this is a reasonable suggestion for reporting non-crime incidents because otherwise there might be a temptation to trawl through someone's Twitter or online posting history to find anything slightly contentious and the report it in a malicious way.

But you knew all that didn't you, jj? So why did you reply as though spero was talking about police recording of any crimes?

It's almost as though you are simply trying to distract from the main point.

Thanks for this.

Now I know without a shadow of a doubt that you are a bad faith distraction merchant and I can safely ignore you entirely.

I was talking, of course, about reporting for 'hate incidents'.

But. You knew that.

" exercise some fucking discretion about what you record as 'hate'. Remember I am also recorded by the South Yorkshire police for saying 'my cat is a Methodist'. Who on earth is any safer because this is done?

Isn't this exacty the kind of discretion that the police could not be trusted to have, which is why new guidelines were brought in post Macpherson? "

Then. The problem here IS THE POLICE. If our police really are this mind bogglingly stupid we need to GET RID OF THEM AND GET BETTER ONES.

But. I don't believe our police ARE that mind boggling stupid. But I am now strongly of the view that the College of Policing are.

"It seems this and other demands go somewhat beyond the power of judicial review."

Then the guidance can simply be quashed. All of it. I'm very good with that.

Thanks for digging JJ1968.

Happy to benefit from anyone's spade work. I hope this does go to JR and I hope a lot of what we are discussing can be cleared up for you.

You will then I hope have the grace to dial down your comments about 'breath taking' entitlement.

@Butterer

I forgot that I started working at the UKDPC the week they helped launch a disability hate crime reporting initiative - issues included cuckooing, vulnerable people being financially or sexually exploited but targeted or extra vulnerable because of their disability, that sort of stuff, as well as the more usual experiences of abuse. If I remember right, it was under the "stop hate" umbrella. I get mixed up between the stop hate crime stuff and reporting hate incidents. I also haven't had coffee or breakfast yet.

No problem AT ALL with a parent or carer of a vulnerable and disabled person reporting potential crime on their behalf.

I do however have a massive problem with someone at the other end of the country reporting my tweets from 2017 to Wiltshire police. Which are not 'hateful' towards anyone or anything whatsoever.

The problem here IS THE POLICE. If our police really are this mind bogglingly stupid we need to GET RID OF THEM AND GET BETTER ONES.

It's actually civilians that operate the system.

I was told that the report about me in December 2019 went to a 'Hate Crimes Specialist Officer' who mulled over it at length before recording it as a 'hate incident' in Feb 2020 and suggesting that to say my dog was Jewish was a 'partial public order offence'.

So I am not entirely sure the police have clean hands here.

@Spero

" exercise some fucking discretion about what you record as 'hate'. Remember I am also recorded by the South Yorkshire police for saying 'my cat is a Methodist'. Who on earth is any safer because this is done?

Isn't this exacty the kind of discretion that the police could not be trusted to have, which is why new guidelines were brought in post Macpherson? "

Then. The problem here IS THE POLICE. If our police really are this mind bogglingly stupid we need to GET RID OF THEM AND GET BETTER ONES.

But. I don't believe our police ARE that mind boggling stupid. But I am now strongly of the view that the College of Policing are.

Well what the Lawrence Inquiry found is that the police can be mind bogglingly racist which is why clearer guidelines were drawn up on the reporting of racist incidents. Of course this is not something that will ever apply to you as a white woman, so I can understand how flippantly you seek to overturn those protections.

What protection does OP and other women have against malicious reporting?

No problem AT ALL with a parent or carer of a vulnerable and disabled person reporting potential crime on their behalf.

But anyone else is out then. So if I see a bunch of kids racially abusing a local shopkeeper and report it to police the police should just ignore me. They shouldn't even be allowed to write it down? This is absurd.

@Spero

Thanks for digging JJ1968.

Happy to benefit from anyone's spade work. I hope this does go to JR and I hope a lot of what we are discussing can be cleared up for you.

You will then I hope have the grace to dial down your comments about 'breath taking' entitlement.

Will you be answering this question?

So one last question, as a barrister yourself, do you, or any law firm or chambers you are associated with, intend to take payment of any kind from this crowdfunder?

I don't think the police have clean hands either, my only point is that many jobs are not actually trained police officers but are civilian officers. The 101 service for example.