Police ordered to stop recording hate incidents that are not crimes

[persistentwoman]

The Times reports that the Home Secretary has finally ordered the Police to stop recording alleged "hate incidents" that are not crimes. Sarah Phillimore & Harry Miller are both quoted in the article. It looks as if their courageous efforts to protect free speech are finally having an impact.

Share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2bc5fb68-a5ea-11eb-9b76-9500a3917e5f?shareToken=b55fd41df5a89c6b1c49d49a7de03f9a

I wonder if this is an advance hint of the outcome of Harry's appeal, or just coincidence?

Well done Priti Patel! Thanks for the share token on the article OP.

Sensible decision it seems.

This sounds like good news ...

'“This is a step in the right direction,” said Harry Miller, a former police officer who founded the group Fair Cop, which campaigns for reform of the hate incident guidance issued by the college. “But the government should ditch the recording of non-hate crime incidents as they are fundamentally wrong and remove the presumption of innocence.”'

It's a start, though. Thoughtcrime has to be called out and challenged.

This is a massive development. Partly because it removes the 'criminal' aspect from people expressing legitimate views about safeguarding children, women's rights to same sex spaces and safety. Hopefully it takes some of the fear away when discussing safeguarding, sport etc.

This is what happens when a recommendation started for all the right reasons is allowed to be abused by a small section of society for their own personal means. It has been allowed to grow into what it has with the encouragement of outside organisations.

It’s fantastic news. As a matter of principle nobody should have any form of police record relating to an incident recorded against them with their knowledge nor without investigation nor without any right of recourse.
Well done to Harry, Sarah and Fair Cop.

It’s a good start, certainly.

It's also the Times leading article

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a133572c-a600-11eb-9b76-9500a3917e5f?shareToken=d7cbd9075d2b51d042728d8236964bbb

This is good, though it will be interesting to see hiw/whether the new rules balance this with the problem that arose in the Stephen Lawrence case, which resulted in the recording of hate incidents in the first place, because they wanted to be able to spot patterns of behaviour that tended towards eventual criminality.

That’s brilliant news persistent, thanks for sharing. A definite step in the right direction and if sanity prevails in Maya’s case we will be making progress indeed.

@AfternoonToffee

This is what happens when a recommendation started for all the right reasons is allowed to be abused by a small section of society for their own personal means. It has been allowed to grow into what it has with the encouragement of outside organisations.

Absolutely - it's the law of unintended consequences (which has been responsible for pretty much all the daft shit and downright injustice that we are currently enduring) at play again.

I'm no fan of Priti Patel whatsoever but in this case she's being solid gold.

I noted this comment on the chilling effect:

A Whitehall source said: “These so called non-crime hate incidents have a chilling effect on free speech and potentially stop people expressing views legally and legitimately. If people are found to have done nothing wrong the police shouldn’t punish them.

Found myself wondering where Maya's case would fit with this. Realise Maya isn't being accused of criminal behaviour but the issue of freedom of speech and the chilling effect seem pertinent.

Who on earth would have thought it would be the ruddy Tories, and PP in particular, who I'd be thanking for this?

they wanted to be able to spot patterns of behaviour that tended towards eventual criminality

What was the initiative from Tony Blair that proposed to track 'pre criminality'? That was really chilling.

Can I just ask for clarification on the difference between what Priti Patel has instructed police to do and what Harry Miller is asking for?

As I understand it, Patel has told them to stop recording the incidents on people's individual files, while Miller wants them to stop recording the incidents at all. Is that right?

Who on earth would have thought it would be the ruddy Tories, and PP in particular, who I'd be thanking for this?

Freedom of speech? I don't know about PP in particular, but I'd have thought that was a pretty core value for centre-right politicians.

they wanted to be able to spot patterns of behaviour that tended towards eventual criminality

What was the initiative from Tony Blair that proposed to track 'pre criminality'? That was really chilling.

I don't know re TB, but there is a real need for recording in escalating domestic abuse situations I'd have thought. Though perhaps some of the 'pre crimes' in those cases really are crimes of coercion and/or violence, though perhaps not with the evidential levels needed for prosecution?

Great news. Well done @Spero and @HazzaTheOwl

Presently you are recording events like.
"Unknown person looked at un named person oddly on bus" or
"Person A reports person B for not liking a photo on Facebook "
This clogs up the system and takes time to report and sort through.

There are lots of reports you can not follow up on as there is no name of the person reporting the issue.

Are these 'non crime hate incidents' included in the stats for actual hate crimes, anyone know?

Also in cases of so called minor offences such as indecent exposure which tend to escalate. So little energy put into preventing or even adequately recording them, especially in relation to name changing etc. While actively pursuing women and other who wrongspeak....

I'm assuming Harry Miller is expected by the government to win? Hence this pre-emptive attempt at damage limitation.

However:

What will this system be replaced with?
Will people whose records already contain one or more of these markers ever be told, and will all the markers definitely be removed?
What redress will there be for people who have been maliciously accused and affected up until now?
Will the dodgy statistics compiled on the back of this nonsense be corrected?
Will the media ("massive increase in hate crime") bother to correct their inadequate narratives? (Spoiler: nah.)

... And I don't feel any gratitude towards Priti Patel. This damaging mess should have been sorted out years ago. The Tories have been in power since 2010, in sole charge since 2015. They presided over the rise and rise of this appalling abuse of rights.

It shouldn't have taken members of the public to raise funds and go through the appalling stress of this all the way through the courts, in Harry's case all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Same pattern as the subpostoffices scandal.

@yourhairiswinterfire

Are these 'non crime hate incidents' included in the stats for actual hate crimes, anyone know?

Yes, there is no distinction made between the non crime hate incidents and crimes where hate is a factor in reports of 'hate crime'

@JackieLavertysWeirdVoice

... And I don't feel any gratitude towards Priti Patel. This damaging mess should have been sorted out years ago. The Tories have been in power since 2010, in sole charge since 2015. They presided over the rise and rise of this appalling abuse of rights.

It shouldn't have taken members of the public to raise funds and go through the appalling stress of this all the way through the courts, in Harry's case all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Same pattern as the subpostoffices scandal.

Absolutely