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.

@Thelnebriati

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

The protection happens when a decision is made whether to reveal information held on an enhanced DRB check. If the report was felt to be malicious then it shouldn't be included, and if it is there would be a good case of bringing successful court action against the police.

No-one has any protection beyond this against kind of malicious reporting except for potentially bringing counter charges of harassment.

This is all ultimately about safeguarding. As many people have pointed out, people should not take safeguarding measures personally. Yes sometimes people might feel unfairly swept up, yes sometimes reports might be malicious, but in this case the protections that exist to ensure police information to potential employers is only released on a proportionate basis would ensure that no-one will ever be told about the hate incident file presuming those tweets are all there is, and if they were there would be avenues for legal redress.

It seems that some people support stringent safeguarding measures until it affects them.

@Butterer

*ding I'm really pissed off that as an exploited vulnerable third party, I can't report fraud that involved use of my name in the application and approval for a loan, because I wasn't the defrauded party/I didn't part with any money .

But I could easily report a tweet as a perceived hate incident/crime, and have it recorded and investigated, as with the OP.

That's fucking ridiculous.

You could report it, and a record would almost certainly be held of your report. Whether it was investigated or taken seriously is another matter.

An example of the people doing the recording.

allpolicejobs.co.uk/jobs/662048

Police Staff Investigator - Level 1
Applications are invited for the post of Police Staff Investigator (PSI) (Level 1).
We are seeking conscientious, dedicated and inquiring individuals to work as part of a team to ensure a professional investigative and supportive service is delivered.

As a PSI you will obtain statements from witnesses, review third party material, produce reports, conduct telephone enquiries, assisting in the preparation of documentation for any court cases or hearings.

Having experience of investigation is required, and it would be advantageous if you have worked on complex cases.

You will have the ability to present materials both verbally and in writing demonstrating and adapting the style used to the target audience, as well as being able to make effective decisions, and work to competing deadlines.

Pointless responding to jj until they are a bit clearer about the differences between crimes, allegations of crimes, information, hate incidents, the notion of allegations of hate incidents and whether this actually exists without being a hate incident.

They seem muddled from one post to the next - responding to questions about crimes as if an allegation of the crime is the same thing.

"If the report was felt to be malicious"
So it all boils down to feelings, again, rather than categorical evidence?

Last answer to JJ1968

It would have saved us all a lot of frankly dull posts if you had just been clear about what's really driving you at the outset.

No. I won't see a penny. No nor will my Chambers. That's why crowdjustice is useful, even though they treated Allison Bailey like shit, because nasty bad faith posters who want to insinuate financial corruption will have to accept when looking at the terms of service that money goes only to the nominated solicitor who will then pay my barristers.

If this goes all the way and I lose, the costs will be six figures. Easily. And unless my solicitors can get a costs protection order, I stand to lose my only asset, my house.

I hope that's sufficient for you to understand the risks I face. If it isn't, I don't give a crap. Anonymous people can carp and moan in the shadows, you are very good at that.

Just stay out of the way of people who are doing something.

allpolicejobs.co.uk/jobs/661433

This job is Auditing the recording.

Paying well below national median earnings.

I suspect this is where the problem lies, the job of recording is a call centre level job. Expecting a high level of judgement to be applied at a junior level of role is simply not going to happen. this is not a criticism of the people in the jobs, but of the organisation structure.

Create massive demand. Hire unskilled people to deal with it. End up with problems.

@DeaconBoo

Pointless responding to jj until they are a bit clearer about the differences between crimes, allegations of crimes, information, hate incidents, the notion of allegations of hate incidents and whether this actually exists without being a hate incident.

They seem muddled from one post to the next - responding to questions about crimes as if an allegation of the crime is the same thing.

"If the report was felt to be malicious"
So it all boils down to feelings, again, rather than categorical evidence?

Most people when they go to police will not say I want to report a hate incident. They may believe a crime has been committed, or they may just be reporting what they feel is suspicious activity. These reports are likely to be logged regardless of whether a crime has been committed in the views of the police or not. Now if that person making the intial report believes the incident was motivated by hostility towards one of the protected groups it would be logged as a hate incident, as opposed to just an incident. So for example I could report @Spero's tweets because I felt they were harassment or broke the malicious communications act. Now the police would likely look at that and think nah, sorry we can't take any action here, but a report of the allegation would probably still be logged. If I said I thought they were transphobic harassment an allegation would be logged as a potential hate incident, as opposed to an allegation of harassment. Nothing has changed in terms of how evidence and information is stored and potentially disclosed except the words hate incident have been introduced to describe certain kinds of incidents and allegations.

So it doesn't matter that crimes, non crimes, allegations (whether proved or unproved), and incidents are not the same thing. The police are permitted to hold information on all of them. This JR seems to either be suggesting that shouldn't happen, or that it should only not happen if the information held was reported by the complainant to be an incident motivated by hostility to the protected groups. That strikes me as absurd, and potentially discriminatory.

The ability to make a false and malicious report of something that is not a crime in order to cause harm is not an example of safeguarding.

Presenting it as a safeguarding issue shows you dont have a grasp of even basic safeguarding.

@Escapeplanning

allpolicejobs.co.uk/jobs/661433

This job is Auditing the recording.

Paying well below national median earnings.

I suspect this is where the problem lies, the job of recording is a call centre level job. Expecting a high level of judgement to be applied at a junior level of role is simply not going to happen. this is not a criticism of the people in the jobs, but of the organisation structure.

Create massive demand. Hire unskilled people to deal with it. End up with problems.

This! And it's only going to get worse. I believe the Met Police (who can't be arsed to follow up crimes like burglary, car theft and fraud) are to appoint 100s of new staff for hate crimes? That's policy capture in action. Try asking citizens if they're happy that these are the police's priorities and you'll get very robust replies. Thank you Spero for all this. A quick glance at the comments elsewhere from many hundreds of people indicate that the population has grasped the insidiousness of these 'hate incidents'.

@Thelnebriati

The ability to make a false and malicious report of something that is not a crime in order to cause harm is not an example of safeguarding.

Presenting it as a safeguarding issue shows you dont have a grasp of even basic safeguarding.

No of course it's not, but the power of the police to disclose non crime information on someone applying for a job which requires an enhanced DBS is about safeguarding. Surely it's the fact this information can potentially be disclosed that is what concerns people? Or is it just that the local police station might hold a few notes on someone, as they do thousands of other people who have never been convicted of an offence? Are people objecting to the police holding this information on principal, even if no-one ever sees it, or because it might one day be disclosed as part of basic safeguarding employment procedures?

Dear All

Brief update on how the garden is coming along. Unfortunately the two head gardeners do not accept that the amount of digging done was in the right place and are claiming that the digging must cease. I don't agree with their analysis but will await further instructions from my own horticultural experts to determine where the spades next go.

thanks again for all your support.

Dear all - really pleased to announce that I have been joined in another bit of the garden by a keen young horticulturalist 'Miss B' who also thinks the hate crimes guidance is a shocking attack on our fundamental freedoms. i hope that people will feel that if they have any spare spades or hoes, they can put these to good use.

Just to fire you up, I got the police disclosure from my second Subject Access Request a few days ago. It referred to me as a 'known suspect' and recorded me FOR A CRIME for posing an article on Twitter.

Another police office had to come along and remind them that this wasn't actually a public order offence, and I was downgraded to a hate incident.

But how dangerous and stupid is this? At least one police officer thought I had committed an actual crime by posting an article. The same one that my regulator said was perfectly fine to post.

i really hope we are going to win this. I am actually very afraid about what will happen if we don't.

twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/1334749736155353088?s=21

Hopefully this will get some traction.

@Spero this is chilling stuff

Article in the Times today

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5deddca6-35a5-11eb-9999-78711a047ec4?shareToken=fe2819cdd981d848d5c70cd7f012628f

I don't want to derail this thread in any way, but reading here prompted me to have a look at the judgment in the Miller case:-

Miller v The College of Policing & Anor (2020) EWHC 225 (Admin)

and I was just totally astounded at [90] by what the police officer was alleged to have said:-

Finally, PC Gul offered his final words of advice, words that I will never forget as I was so stunned by them. He said, 'You have to understand, sometimes in the womb, a female brain gets confused and pushes out the wrong body parts, and that is what transgender is.

I replied, 'You've got to be kidding me. Wrong body parts ? You have to know that is absolute bullshit. Is this really the official police line ?'

PC Gul said, 'Yes, I have been on a course.'