Social media hate crime must be treated as a 'priority' - College of Policing Guidance

[stumbledin]

Social media hate crime must be treated as “priority” and handled by senior officers, new College of Policing guidance states.

Officers have been told that even where a crime has not been committed, they should consider visiting the accused at work and it should be recorded as a “hate incident” which could show up on criminal record checks.

It has reignited debate over the impact on freedom of speech and the use of police resources.

The guidance, released quietly at the end of last year, is now facing a judicial review by campaigners who say that it could be “actively harmful” as it allows police to record even false or malicious accusations.

Article in yesterday's Telegraph (sorry dont have share token) www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/25/social-media-hate-crime-must-treated-priority-police-told/

New national hate crime guidance published
Published on 20 October 2020
beta.college.police.uk/article/new-national-hate-crime-guidance-published

I know there are existing threads on this but just wanted to highlight that again it is right wing papers monitoring this development in policing and are reporting - but behind a paywall.

Article also has reminders that two court cases are coming up:

" ... Mr Miller, who last year won a legal challenge against Humberside Police after they recorded a ‘non-crime hate incident’ against him, is due to go back to the Court of Appeal to challenge the College of Policing guidance in March.

Sarah Phillimore, a barrister and co-founder of Fair Cop, is leading a separate judicial review against the guidance which is in its pre-action stages. ... "

Thanks for arachive link.

This means it is easier to share this move towards an Orwellian state - well certainly for women.

Is this simply to record lots of ‘offences’ which are easily cleared up by police harassing the ‘offender’ at work (eg Harry Miller) or while she’s breastfeeding (sorry, forgotten her name), in order to make police clear-up rates look good?

Thus saving the bother of investigating rapes, burglaries, assaults or anything actually, you know, criminal?

Thanks for this. I might use it in my submission for freedom of expression enquiry.

@ArabellaScott That sounds promising. I'll look for that new thread/

It’s particularly concerning this action was taken after the Fair Cop court case.

Given that they had been taken to court, regardless of the fact that they were technically not found to be in the wrong (appeal granted immediately) you might thought they would have examined what they were doing with a critical eye on whether they were overstepping the mark. Bear in mind that Humberside Police were found in breach, presumably because they had overstepped the mark.

It’s bizarre, that having examined the situation (both cases) they haven’t maintained the status quo, but instead, are doubling down and appear to be advising forces to take the exact action that caused Humberside Police to be found in the wrong.

There’s something so far wrong at the top of this organisation that it’s alarming.

Sort of related but there was an article (probably the Mail) saying that in fact the Tories were going to look into getting rid of Blair's "idiotic" hate crime laws to fit in with the approach Liz Truss wants equality laws to operate. Something along the lines of not being about characteristics but about equality of opportunities. (ie implying that if everyone irrespective of heritate, sex etc.. got exactly the same education and so on, there would not be inequality - just people who are somehow better at using opportunities!)

One of the most insidious aspects of the "non-crime hate crime" policy is that the Police do not even have to inform the accused that a complaint has been made against them. Or, in some cases, that the Police have taken the initiative to record a "non-crime hate crime" in the absence of any complaint.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3982831-I-have-been-recorded-by-my-local-police-force-as-hateful?msgid=98786175

It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the Police would keep secret records about people under, say, anti-terrorism legislation, or in the course of investigating actual crimes.

However, the justification for recording "non-crime hate crimes" was supposed to be crime prevention, ie. to prevent "escalation" from a ^"non-crime hate crime"* to an actual crime "aggravated by hate" (ie. a "hate crime") or to an "incitement to hatred" crime.

Are the Police using records of "non-crime hate crimes" to prevent crimes? If so, how?

Why would an accused person:

• have to find out by accident that they might have a "non-crime hate crime" on their record?

• then have to use a Subject Access Request to find out exactly what has been recorded?

• then have no right of appeal against what might well have been a mistaken or malicious complaint?

The whole thing stinks!

There are two URGENT cases in the pipeline challenging the existing College of Policing policy on "social media hate crimes" (ie. "NON-crime hate crimes" ) that I cannot link to due to Mumsnet rules. However, these internet searches should help to find them:

1. lmgtfy.app/?q=The+police+should+not+secretly+record+us+as+%27hateful%27

1. lmgtfy.app/?q=Please+join+Miss+B.+in+standing+up+for+tolerance%2C+free+speech+and+fair+futures+for+all+children+%E2%80%93+whatever+their+views+or+opinions+may+be.

The laws of the land are made by Gov not the police.
This is the interpretation of the Law and how the police are expected to fulfil it.
Just saying because people rant about the police but they can only enact the law which they don't make.

The laws of the land are made by Gov not the police.
This is the interpretation of the Law and how the police are expected to fulfil it.
Just saying because people rant about the police but they can only enact the law which they don't make.

I suspect the intent of the law was to allow police to collate relevant information on potential criminals, who showed genuine signs of hatred against the protected groups.

Does it state in the written law that there must be no interpretation by the police and all reported incidents must be recorded without any evidence of hatred when viewed through the eyes of a reasonable person?

And I’m as certain as can be that this was to allow justice to be served when a crime was committed that related to previously recorded incidents. In the absence of such a crime, these records should be private.

Visiting the accused person, who has committed no crime whatsoever, in their place of work is a very long way beyond what was intended by the law, as the judge in the Fair Cop case set out. He compared the actions of Humberside police to the Stasi.

The Police are following policy determined by the College of Policing, not "the laws of the land".

"The College of Policing is a professional body for everyone working across policing. It is an operationally independent arm's-length body of the Home Office."

The link to the Guidance is upthread - same as below:

"New national hate crime guidance published"

The College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice guidance on hate crime has been developed after extensive consultation with officers, staff and the public. It provides detailed information to help police forces across England and Wales effectively and consistently investigate offences and keep the public safe.

The updated guidance addresses recommendations in a report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), which looked at the initial police response to reports of hate crime. It also takes into account the findings from a High Court ruling in February 2020 when a claim that the College’s previous hate crime operational guidance for police was unlawful was rejected.

The new guidance has clear advice for officers and staff on the steps they should take when responding to non-crime hate incidents, including proportionate responses to take depending on the nature of the report and strategies to manage contact with all parties involved.

Further clarification is provided about why the police should record a non-crime hate incident, and what information about a non-crime hate incident should be recorded.

It details the latest products developed by the College to help officers and staff understand how to address the particular vulnerabilities of different people to reduce their risk of harm.

Officers and staff will also be able to access specific advice from the College on working with victims of crime who have been targeted because of their sexual orientation, disability or because they identify as transgender.

Hate crime can take many forms and has a devastating impact on the lives of people across all communities and in all walks of life, often increasing an individual’s sense of vulnerability.

It is appalling that in 2020 people are still being subjected to threats, abuse, and in some cases physical violence, because of their gender identity, race, religion or for other perceived differences.

Our guidance was developed after concerns were raised in The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report that the police were not properly recording incidents of race hate crime. A new approach for recording incidents was then expanded to include other areas.

When a hate crime is reported police should carry out a proportionate, sensitive and thorough investigation, taking into account the rights and freedoms of all parties, without unnecessarily restricting any individual’s right to free speech.

It is only by recording concerns that police can assess their seriousness and build up an accurate picture of the level and nature of offending across England and Wales.

David Tucker, crime lead for the College of Policing

The guidance also includes updated information on the care and support that victims and witnesses should receive to manage any risks to them when reporting an incident and the latest advice on investigating reports of people subjected to hate online.

(END)

beta.college.police.uk/article/new-national-hate-crime-guidance-published

"Major investigation and public protection"

Hate crime

This guidance is for police officers and staff at all levels of the police service, working alongside partners where appropriate, to deliver a consistent, proportionate and robust policing response to hate crime and non-crime hate incidents. The guidance sets out arrangements that forces should consider to support an effective response to allegations of hate crime and non-crime hate incidents. It also includes content for those responding to these events.

These crime and non-crime incidents may have a disproportionate psychological, and in some cases physical, impact on victims and the wider community as compared to equivalent ‘non-hate’ crimes (Hall, 2005; Home Office (2018) Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18, page 28).

Hate crimes can be socially divisive, potentially heightening tensions between communities (Hall, 2005). They are likely to involve repeated victimisation (Home Office (2018) Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18, page 24), and they can increase the risk of civil disorder (Hall, 2005).

Hate crimes may be, or may become, critical incidents, regardless of how trivial an incident may initially appear.

In all cases of hate or hostility, victims should be treated sensitively in a way that is appropriate to their needs, recognising the greater impact that hate crimes and incidents may have on victims.

Lots more detail at:

www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/hate-crime/

One of the sections is:

"Major investigation and public protection"

Responding to non-crime hate incidents

Lots of detail but also many links that do not work.

www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/hate-crime/responding-to-non-crime-hate-incidents/

Right, so. I can be cautioned for Tweeting biological facts, but the man who threatened to rape me for liking a GC tweet won't be?

Excellent.

@Sheleg

Right, so. I can be cautioned for Tweeting biological facts, but the man who threatened to rape me for liking a GC tweet won't be?

Excellent.

I think this is exactly how it will pan out. You'll probably be made to apologise to rapey threat man.

It also takes into account the findings from a High Court ruling in February 2020 when a claim that the College’s previous hate crime operational guidance for police was unlawful was rejected.

This is a reference to the Harry Miller JR. Rather disingenuous. Anyone know how they "took into account" the findings? Do they accept that Humberside police, who were found to have acted wrongly, acted on their guidelines?

If twaw, end of, no questions, end of, how will they know which women are the goodie and which are the baddies?

'Women' aren't protected under hate crime legislation.

May I caveat this statement?
'Women' born with a penis are.
Women born with a vagina are not.