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

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

So are we going to see a massive decline in hate crimes then?

What on Earth will the police do with their useless numpty contingent? Will theyhave to start catching burglars or prosecuting rapists or something to make their stats look better?

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

Thanks Thingybob

So are we going to see a massive decline in hate crimes then?

(I'm certainly not an expert but) I believe the article is saying that these non crime hate incidents will no longer be recorded on a file against the accused person but it doesn't go as far as saying that such reports won't be recorded at all hence Harry saying

“This is a step in the right direction,”
“But the government should ditch the recording of non-hate crime incidents as they are fundamentally wrong and remove the presumption of innocence.”

However, I imagine there would no longer be the same incentive to report an 'incident' e.g a misgendering on Twitter, if the accused did not suffer some detriment from the reporting.

So are we going to see a massive decline in hate crimes then?

I think so. It will be really interesting to see the difference when it's only actual crimes, investigated by the police, rather than twitter spats and hurt feeling that get recorded.

I have a feeling some of this has been empire building by some police officers. Its been used as a route to career progression rather than meaningful crime prevention.

@ArabellaScott

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.

Thought crime? Can you name a single person ever who has been convicted for their thoughts? I thought people were convicted for sharing their thoughts, not having them?

JediGnot
That's the problem - the police record this without any due legal process no matter how flimsy the "evidence" - just on the say so of any random person. So Harry had a police officer rock up to "check his thinking" and this was then recorded with no checks or balances. A DBS check would result in this subjective and unregulated record being produced as "evidence"

PC Gul had 'had the training' so he apparently knew he had to visit Harry and 'check his thinking'.

I think the visit was to Harry's place of work?

@persistentwoman

JediGnot That's the problem - the police record this without any due legal process no matter how flimsy the "evidence" - just on the say so of any random person. So Harry had a police officer rock up to "check his thinking" and this was then recorded with no checks or balances. A DBS check would result in this subjective and unregulated record being produced as "evidence"

Sorry, you can't check people's thinking - you can only listen to what they say. No-one has ever been punished for thinking something, they have only ever got punished for expressing that they think it.

IMHO we are free to think what we like. We should be free to say most things too, but some things we need to be careful not to say, or careful about how and where and to whom we say them to.

Sorry, this email may be a bit tangential to the debate and I am being a bit petty, but I just hate the lazy language. NO-ONE KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS UNLESS YOU COMMUNICATE THEM - THE PROBLEM IS WHAT YOU COMMUNICATE NOT WHAT YOU THINK!

And guess what, people use metaphors from Orwell because they think they're appropriate to the circumstances.

Not quite sure what point your making JediGnot? I was quoting the infamous PC Ghul who went to Harry's place of work to investigate Harry and said he was there to check your thinking to him.

Not sure who you're accusing of using "lazy language"?

Cross posted with JackieLavertysWeirdVoice

IMHO we are free to think what we like. We should be free to say most things too, but some things we need to be careful not to say, or careful about how and where and to whom we say them to.

So if you happen to think e.g. the terrible thought that we can abbreviate as TWAM, but you'd never actually say that aloud because you're careful about who you express it to (and you're not in Scotland so Alexa can't dob you in if you mutter it in your sleep) you're fine, right?

What if you think TWAM and you turn around and leave when you see a TW in the ladies', who consequently takes the huff and reports it as a Hate Incident? Do you think that's too ridiculous to really happen or something? If you do, you haven't been following this debate for very long. Nothing is ever too ridiculous to happen.

What if you think TWAM and you turn a TW down for sex because you're not into men, and get reported for it and a Hate Incident recorded against your name for the pain? That actually HAS happened.

Could it be a Hate Incident to not put your pronouns on your email? It could! A Hate Incident can be whatever you want it to be! All it takes is for someone to identify the incident as a Hate Incident and tell the cops about it.

If your wrongthink has any kind of impact whatsoever on your behaviour, a sufficiently paranoid or vindictive person can sniff that out and report you for it.

One of the major issues for the Judges in Harry's case will be the fact the these incidents are not investigated and you are not even told they exist. As far as I know, there has never been a case where recording of these incidents has then resulted in escalation (which is what the intention was) and around 50% of the incidents are ones the police record about themselves (not sure if that makes sense but police have hate incidents against them and they report it).

Needs a bit of a re-think because there should be some way of ensuring any escalation in racism is dealt with, so it doesn't end in violence

The idea that the police want to have some sense of escalating incidents in quite a few areas makes a certain kind of sense. The thinking is, well, what can we do to prevent these problems before they start, that's a pretty understandable goal in all kinds of work with antisocial behaviours. Or to want to be able to study what kinds of behaviours lead up to criminality in the first place.

But - in these thought crime incidents, the implications are really problematic. And I don't think you can separate the expression of wrong-think in these instances from actually having the thoughts. That's always ben the first step of regimes that want to control thought - control expression of thought and say it's ok to think what you want as long as it is done privately, of course that is free thought! This was exactly how the big communist states dealt with religion.

At the very least it may just be something that should not be tracked, even if it could be useful information in some circumstances - it comes too close to criminalising ideas.

But I am more and more coming to the conclusion that the creation of hate crime categories was the problem in the first place. They were criticised wherever they were made law at the time as fundamentally being a type of thought crime, which was ridiculed by many progressives, but the outcomes have been on the side of them being rather dangerous.

@PronounssheRa

So are we going to see a massive decline in hate crimes then?

I think so. It will be really interesting to see the difference when it's only actual crimes, investigated by the police, rather than twitter spats and hurt feeling that get recorded.

I have a feeling some of this has been empire building by some police officers. Its been used as a route to career progression rather than meaningful crime prevention.

I'm sure that someone got their promotion to Superintendent on the back of this sort of thing. Leaving the beleaguered rank-and-file to do all of the extra bumph.

NO-ONE KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS UNLESS YOU COMMUNICATE THEM - THE PROBLEM IS WHAT YOU COMMUNICATE NOT WHAT YOU THINK!
@JediGnot I should be perfectly able to freely express my thoughts (within the bounds of decency) without fear of going on some government register.

@persistentwoman

Not quite sure what point your making JediGnot? I was quoting the infamous PC Ghul who went to Harry's place of work to investigate Harry and said he was there to check your thinking to him.

Not sure who you're accusing of using "lazy language"?

I'm pointing out that whatever PC Ghul was told and whatever he said he never in a million years checked anyone's thinking. He asked them what they thought and they chose whether to tell him and if they chose to tell him chose whether to tell him the truth or a lie.

I am thinking some really nasty stuff right now - prison if anyone could read my mind... but there is no chance whatsoever of me being punished for it because I never communicated it to anyone.

@DdraigGoch

NO-ONE KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS UNLESS YOU COMMUNICATE THEM - THE PROBLEM IS WHAT YOU COMMUNICATE NOT WHAT YOU THINK! *@JediGnot* I should be perfectly able to freely express my thoughts (within the bounds of decency) without fear of going on some government register.

I agree - but it all comes down to what is decent.

Some people think that talking about whether TWAW is a reasonable subject of conversation, others think it is indecent and grossly offensive to talk about the issues. Hence the problems!

Ladies! Keep your thoughts to yourselves!

Excellent news.

Some people think that talking about whether TWAW is a reasonable subject of conversation, others think it is indecent and grossly offensive to talk about the issues. Hence the problems!

Hang on, why is it 'indecent and grossly offensive' to state biological fact?
If the mantra was 'TW should burn in hell' or something like that, then I would agree, that is offensive - but simply discussing whether I should be compelled to agree with someone else's chosen identity is not and should never be considered offensive.

The law needs to be proportionate and reasonable, otherwise you are just pandering to extremists.

I liken it to religious belief - you are fully entitled to believe whatever you want. However I should not be compelled to agree with it, nor should I be punished for disagreeing.

It further comes down to who gets to decide what is offensive and what isn't. When reasonable statements that are biologically true are being labelled as hate speech we have a serious problem.

Excellent news. Well done all those who fought for this.

IMHO we are free to think what we like. We should be free to say most things too, but some things we need to be careful not to say, or careful about how and where and to whom we say them to.

In what sense should believing biological sex is a meaningful way to categorise people, and advocating for women's sex based rights such as female only spaces, as laid out in the Equality Act, be one of the "things we need to be careful not to say"?

It will be really interesting to see the difference when it's only actual crimes, investigated by the police, rather than twitter spats and hurt feeling that get recorded.

A useful reminder that we're not back in the world of sanity yet, even though we've made progress.

That is such good news!

I'm sure Harry's case has had a lot to do with it.