Non-crime hate incidents

[TeamRex]

Article in the Times today, we need more saying this loud and clearly

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e6cfb28-3a81-11ec-9bef-aa3112940013?shareToken=72ae1131089923914acaa130b0cfb60b

Thread to discuss the pros and cons of the police recording non-crime hate incidents.

Please don't include actual crimes,

It seems to me like we're far too complacent when it comes to this type of surveillance.

How to we get the balance between the police having intelligence on people who may go on to commit crimes?

It's madness that police are recording thoughts (or rather, accusations of thoughts) as actual crimes. It's stasi stuff and witch-hunting all over again but in a modern British format.

It's also noticeable that one of the few things that isn't recorded anywhere is sexism too - this tells you everything about the powers that be.

Having said this, as I said on the other thread, you could record these as motivations for actual crimes when they're provable to track incidents if you want to.

They are recording these things specifically as non-crimes. So a person can have a series of incidents recorded against their name when they haven't done anything illegal.

The police simply record what the reporter says happened, no evidence is needed and they do no checks to see it it's true. And they are under no obligation to tell the person that this has been recorded against their name.

I had no idea this happened. It sounds like there's no need for proof, because it's not a crime...in which case why are the police involved? They are supposed to be enforcers not makers of the law, but in these cases it's police officers, not law makers, judges or magistrates, who are deciding whether someone's thoughts are acceptable.

I think it started because before committing crimes people might have a number of these incidents occur and the idea is the police could do community work to head off actual crimes.

The problem is that it's a very dodgy system at the moment that can be abused to get reports recorded against people they disagree with.

Any idea how we can listen to the debate? I couldn't find anything obvious on the timetable of debates abd committees today. The police and crime bill maybe?

If the police have time to faff about with this they have time to attend bloody burglaries and assaults.

Locally an elderly guy, battered, left on the floor and bleeding by thugs trying to mug him for cash, waited five days before police managed to get around to attending. But apparently mentioning biology? Oh they have time and resources to manage that.

This is a truly stupid idea that should never have been part of their brief in the first place. One of many very, very stupid ideas, largely based on a fear of saying 'no' and standing up to toys being hurled out of the pram.

The Times article is by Ken Macdonald, Lord Macdonald, crossbench peer, QC and former Director of Public Prosecutions.

@Manderleyagain

Any idea how we can listen to the debate? I couldn't find anything obvious on the timetable of debates abd committees today. The police and crime bill maybe?

You can watch the debate live on Parliament TV; this will be the first issue up for discussion and should start around 3.30pm

Link here:

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0f6746fa-3805-478e-bd16-89d7f1d9a225

I was threatened with this by local police when I videoed men giving children alcohol and then taking them off in cars.

I'm a police officer and I (and everyone I work with) also think this is mental. In my force it's a civilian team called "crime auditors" who crime incidents. They are doing it at the dictation of the Home Office Counting Rules which sets out the guidance for what needs to be recorded as a crime. If they don't follow these rules then HMIC can penalise the force.

If an incident like this crosses my desk I make sure to remove the "suspect" status. Totally bonkers.

This kind of thing scares me because I need a DBS clearance for work. @Wiltshire90 would something like this come up on a DBS?

Yes that’s the problem. No crime, but the hate incidents could come up on a DBS check, which is simply appalling.

An open invitation for individuals to harass/punish others for no crime at all. Sarah Phillore v good on this.

Sarah Phillimore

Oh, and even better, you’re not informed about it. So you wouldn’t even be aware of their existence until the DBS check

@MajesticWhine it would depend what the job was, and also what the incident recorded "against" you was. If it was a he said/she said non-crime "incident" where nothing has been investigated and it's simply been recorded then extremely unlikely.

@TeamRex

I think it started because before committing crimes people might have a number of these incidents occur and the idea is the police could do community work to head off actual crimes.

The problem is that it's a very dodgy system at the moment that can be abused to get reports recorded against people they disagree with.

One of the legitimate uses, I believe - which probably doesn't get used and taken seriously enough - is in the context of domestic abuse.

I'd have thought it wouldn't be beyond the wit of humankind to distinguish between that and people taking offence at a tweet.

Baroness Fox on fire right now

These Lords are brilliant and even Michael Cashman was unable to defend the indefensible

Baroness Noakes .. how have the police carved out these powers for themselves with no oversight?

Kathleen Stock example - 'cancer in our society'

hansard will be good

Lord Forsyth - when I heard about this, I could not believe it! as an employer I do criminal checks and these people go in the bin. 119K+ incidents including children!

"to say tw are not w, is that a hate crime? - I don't believe I should be on such a list. contact the police college and end this'

Baroness Chakrabarti lecturing them gently on not using quotes by authors 😣