Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Police ordered to stop recording hate incidents that are not crimes

97 replies

persistentwoman · 26/04/2021 08:59

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

OP posts:
stackthecats · 28/04/2021 18:32

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!

Yes, as I recall in the GDR the Stasi were perfectly happy if people only ever individually thought their thoughts inside their heads. The problem came when they expressed them to other people; and obviously that's where a secret police comes in handy, just to make sure that people were extra careful what they said and to whom.

stackthecats · 28/04/2021 18:50

By the way, I really do think that the vast majority of the people who are fully signed up to this are young cancel culture types; and one of the reasons is that I think unless you grew up in the long shadow of the postwar, knowing what went on in regimes that really did kill and exterminate people both for thoughtcrime and for their "identity", you haven't much sense of perspective on what that all means.

I'm only in my early forties, but I grew up in a culture that was still visibly permeated by the long aftermath of war and the still visible threat of both fascist and communist regimes. I've heard people say many bigoted things in my life, some of which I've found deeply distasteful, but I've never once thought they should be criminalised for saying them.

Seeing the totalitarian, repressive impulses return which we once thought were over and left in the past has been one of the most special and novel delights of the new millennium . There's a woeful ignorance of history in any case amongst most people, but the strange desire of the youth to return to an age of surveillance, repression and thought-conformity on both left and right depresses me no end.

When I was a kid we were celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall. Thirty years later people are trying to impose a level of intellectual gaslighting that beggars belief. If the left (and I have always up until now been doggedly leftwing), can't stand up for freedom of thought in a democratic society, then wtf kind of future world do they envisage?

Zinco · 28/04/2021 18:51

The "problem" is that TWAW and GC are arguing and we do not move forward with a sensible agreement on how to deal with the issues!

Well this seems a sensible approach to me: those on the side claiming that TWAW are making a new and strange claim. (Certainly it's a strange claim for many people anyway.) So that side, has a burden of proof to show that TWAW is actually correct.

Without a strong argument here, they should give up the claim, and apologise for accusing people of bigotry over it.

Does that sound OK?

PaleBlueMoonlight · 28/04/2021 19:13

@stackthecats

By the way, I really do think that the vast majority of the people who are fully signed up to this are young cancel culture types; and one of the reasons is that I think unless you grew up in the long shadow of the postwar, knowing what went on in regimes that really did kill and exterminate people both for thoughtcrime and for their "identity", you haven't much sense of perspective on what that all means.

I'm only in my early forties, but I grew up in a culture that was still visibly permeated by the long aftermath of war and the still visible threat of both fascist and communist regimes. I've heard people say many bigoted things in my life, some of which I've found deeply distasteful, but I've never once thought they should be criminalised for saying them.

Seeing the totalitarian, repressive impulses return which we once thought were over and left in the past has been one of the most special and novel delights of the new millennium . There's a woeful ignorance of history in any case amongst most people, but the strange desire of the youth to return to an age of surveillance, repression and thought-conformity on both left and right depresses me no end.

When I was a kid we were celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall. Thirty years later people are trying to impose a level of intellectual gaslighting that beggars belief. If the left (and I have always up until now been doggedly leftwing), can't stand up for freedom of thought in a democratic society, then wtf kind of future world do they envisage?

Thank you for putting into words how I feel.
Spero · 28/04/2021 19:50

@Zinco

Here is something to try...

Someone reports you for a "hate incident".... how often do you know who did it?

Because if you know who did it, then just report their act to report you as itself being a hate incident. They're a bigot motivated by hate to report you; so you can report them for their hatred.

Maybe even report police officers that helped to file complaints or whatever. I don't think they were just doing their job; oh no, I think they were motivated by hate. So we need to record a hate incident against their name. The police don't cooperate? Again, that's another "hate incident" I think...

I am afraid that probably won't work as hate crimes refer to only five monitored strands at the moment - sexual orientation, transgender identity, race, religion and disability. So you would have to show something that related to one or more of the strands.

Although, having said that, 95% of the 12 pages of tweets i was reported and recorded for did not appear to engage any of the five monitored strands so maybe it's worth a go!

SmokedDuck · 28/04/2021 19:59

I totally agree about the stuff with the Cold War etc. It brings home to me that maybe I am getting on, I can remember a lot of things that I say directly, or which really impacted my parents or grandparents directly, and so they always seemed real possibilities.

To younger people now they often don't seem to have a clue. I wonder what they learn about at school, but then I remember that I work in a school and the only real content they get is social justice/anti-discrimination stuff. Some of which is good material but it's literally the only lens they learn.

This business about being free to keep thoughts private for example - that is how the USSR handled religious belief. Which led to the murder of more than 200,000 priests and nuns, many of whom were tortured.

These are not ideas that have no significance.

JackieLavertysWeirdVoice · 28/04/2021 20:45

hate crimes refer to only five monitored strands at the moment - sexual orientation, transgender identity, race, religion and disability

I wonder why they don't match up with the Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics.

I wonder if by any chance the Police have 'had the training' to exclude old witches.

Thelnebriati · 28/04/2021 20:52

I know I bang on about this in every discussion about hate crime, but if you are mugged and 3 people report it, its only one crime.
Whereas with hate incidents, each report is counted as a separate incident.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/04/2021 21:23

Wow is that right? So if lots of people report the same tweet, it's multiple "hate incidents"?

NotBadConsidering · 28/04/2021 21:31

Man who wrote letter defending a woman’s right to abortion had letter recorded as a hate incident:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c84d69e8-a785-11eb-9b76-9500a3917e5f?shareToken=531c6c9d712ff68dbf0ceca64239fb26

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 28/04/2021 21:47

@Spero what a fighter you are. You absolute ⭐️

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 28/04/2021 21:49

But yes, generally free speech needs to be protected ESPECIALLY in academia.

UCU are fighting this tooth and nail, and are quite transparent about the basis of their objections. Women in academia have an uphill battle ahead of them, I'm afraid.

CardinalLolzy · 28/04/2021 22:19

I am afraid that probably won't work as hate crimes refer to only five monitored strands at the moment - sexual orientation, transgender identity, race, religion and disability. So you would have to show something that related to one or more of the strands.

But isn't it also if you claim the 'hater' perceives you to be one of these? And the 'incident' doesn't need to have anything whatsoever to do with these characteristics - obviously if it's slurs that's one thing but if they just e.g. refuse service, park across your drive....

So can't you just say: they reported me maliciously because they hate me because they think I'm gay/straight/trans/whatever... so they are the ones doing a hate incident?

The actual presence of the characteristic or validity of the perception doesn't ever get tested, does it?

There was a thread on here ages ago musing about whether you could just pluck one of these out of the air if you e.g. wanted to object to your neighbour's planning application. "This application cannot go ahead because I believe it to be a hate incident due to them hating my protected characteristic as hetero/homosexual" - that's just as valid a report of a hate incident as anything else, isn't it?

CardinalLolzy · 28/04/2021 22:20

(sorry Spero, didn't mean to bombard you with questions!) Grin

youkiddingme · 28/04/2021 23:22

Sorry if I'm being thick but is Patel instructed the college to review the reporting of non-crime hate incidents, which can lead to individuals being put at a disadvantage in their daily lives, most significantly when applying for jobs. the same as "police are ordered to stop recording..." because it doesn't sound like it.

What does review mean?

CardinalLolzy · 29/04/2021 11:41

I wondered the same - headline says 'stop', text says 'review'. Maybe in practice it means the same but who knows?

Spero · 29/04/2021 21:26

@CardinalLolzy

I am afraid that probably won't work as hate crimes refer to only five monitored strands at the moment - sexual orientation, transgender identity, race, religion and disability. So you would have to show something that related to one or more of the strands.

But isn't it also if you claim the 'hater' perceives you to be one of these? And the 'incident' doesn't need to have anything whatsoever to do with these characteristics - obviously if it's slurs that's one thing but if they just e.g. refuse service, park across your drive....

So can't you just say: they reported me maliciously because they hate me because they think I'm gay/straight/trans/whatever... so they are the ones doing a hate incident?

The actual presence of the characteristic or validity of the perception doesn't ever get tested, does it?

There was a thread on here ages ago musing about whether you could just pluck one of these out of the air if you e.g. wanted to object to your neighbour's planning application. "This application cannot go ahead because I believe it to be a hate incident due to them hating my protected characteristic as hetero/homosexual" - that's just as valid a report of a hate incident as anything else, isn't it?

Given that the police cannot challenge the Reporting Person as this is 'secondary victimisation' you may well be on to something.
Spero · 29/04/2021 21:28

@youkiddingme

Sorry if I'm being thick but is Patel instructed the college to review the reporting of non-crime hate incidents, which can lead to individuals being put at a disadvantage in their daily lives, most significantly when applying for jobs. the same as "police are ordered to stop recording..." because it doesn't sound like it.

What does review mean?

I think Helen Dale was good on this point today.

I think Patel is trying to get them to stop to pre-empt what I really hope is the massive defeat headed their way via the Court of Appeal.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/04/2021 23:22

That was a very interesting discussion, thank you!

Flaxmeadow · 30/04/2021 00:11

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

That's a chestnut isn't it? In other words, monitoring and surveillance. 'Police intelligence' and the like. For example another 'thought crime' is 'being an associate of'.

Wandawomble · 30/04/2021 00:54

@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.
And it’s amazing how quickly and often they did abuse it isn’t it?
NotBadConsidering · 30/04/2021 12:41

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.

I’ve said this before, but I’m surprised Baroness Lawrence, now in the House of Lords, hasn’t said anything either way about this. It was brought in specifically as a recommendation after the murder of her son. She is the patron of the Stop Hate UK charity and sits on the Labour benches as a working peer, so has direct involvement in changes to legislation. The idea of hate incidents to protect people from racism has been ruined by vexatious complaints about people stating biological reality. I would have thought she’d have an opinion. Must be hard for her.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page