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

I cant watch. Will have to read on hansard.

But I did see the ammendment linked here
mobile.twitter.com/bricksilk/status/1455103208112656389

It will make the subject & details personal data unde gdpr
To record a non crime hate incident they will have to consider the effect on freedom of expression.
They will have to inform you that they are recording it, how long it will be retained, and the appeal process.
It restricts their ability to disclose to 3rd parties eg in a disclose check. Nit sure if I means that won't be possible to disclose.

I hope the amendmemt passes.

@crumpet

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.

The likes of Wayne Couzens may have been spotted earlier if he had numerous NCHI's recorded against him.

How about perpetrators of domestic violence, who never actually commits any crimes, but have numerous incidents which are misogynistic?

Felix, yes...- Lord Ponsonby pointed to DV - used evidence stored for years as a judge from police and social services.

Are domestic violence reports stored as NCHI's though? I thought witness statements were kept and police notes are kept - but not the same as actually recording an NCHI which is what this amendment is about.

@FindTheTruth yes they are still recorded. I recently had a case where the suspect was given a prison sentence. Part of the evidence was of his "bad character" in the numerous non-crime domestic incidents we'd attended over the past five years. It may not always be deemed admissable or relevant but in this case it certainly was. Plus, any domestic we attend now part of our policy is to review any previous incidents recorded on those involved to make sure we're not missing anything.

Wiltshire do you think it all went downhill when the police decided that people taking offence on twitter were included or treated at the same level as a female victim of male violence in the home or a victim of a racist attack? or have a misunderstood. In the HoL the minister explained it all started after Stephen Lawrence. I cannot get my head round how a TRA taking offence that someone doesn't share their philosophical belief came to be equated with the awful cases it was originally set out to tackle

The likes of Wayne Couzens may have been spotted earlier if he had numerous NCHI's recorded against him.

How about perpetrators of domestic violence, who never actually commits any crimes, but have numerous incidents which are misogynistic?

Sex is not a protected characteristic under hate crimes or NCHI so these would not be recorded. Wayne Couzen''s would have been stopped earlier if the police had properly investigated the actual crimes he had committed. That they did not reflect the misogynistic police culture that is only heightened by the special status given to groups other than women under NCHI guidelines.

@FindTheTruth they're really not - I think this is a case of a few cases getting hugely out of hand and garnering a lot of media attention. I personally have never seen anybody interviewed or arrested for the types of incidents you're talking about. Domestic abuse and violence however, I see positive action taken by the police every day. I've never come across any "hate incident" where someone has been offended by something someone says online being "actioned" by us unless it actually IS a crime, not a non-crime incident. I can only speak for personal experience of course. "The Police" is made up of 120k+ officers, 48 different forces, many different policies and procedures and is directed by the Home Office so it's hardly the police "deciding" anything.

I'm not saying this isn't a concerning issue because of course it is and there clearly have been cases which have been taken too far, but from what I am seeing at work it's not a huge widespread issue and anything like this that does get reported either never comes to a police officer's attention or is dealt with with common sense.

@Wiltshire90 that's really reassuring. I just hope they don't knee jerk reaction the other way and stop capturing these patterns of behaviour in serious cases. especially thinking about Dr Jane Monkton Smith's homicide timeline where she's mapped the patterns and predictors that could save so many lives.

@FindTheTruth I've not come across her work but it looks really interesting, thanks I talked in a post above about how we record non-crime domestics and how we review the domestic history and the history of those involved when we submit the reports, so it sounds like we're already (in my force) picking up on the types of things Dr Jane Monkton Smith is talking about. I can't see that stopping any time soon with domestics (if ever) due to the number of murders that are between domestic partners

Some domestics we go to are not a hate incident, but they are still recorded and can be used to give a better picture of the history

@Lovelyricepudding

The likes of Wayne Couzens may have been spotted earlier if he had numerous NCHI's recorded against him.

How about perpetrators of domestic violence, who never actually commits any crimes, but have numerous incidents which are misogynistic?

Sex is not a protected characteristic under hate crimes or NCHI so these would not be recorded. Wayne Couzen''s would have been stopped earlier if the police had properly investigated the actual crimes he had committed. That they did not reflect the misogynistic police culture that is only heightened by the special status given to groups other than women under NCHI guidelines.

my point being is that if we started recording incidents where he posted misogynistic posts of Facebook etc - it would have built a better picture. Perhaps hate crimes should include sex as a protected characteristic

I would say the natural next step to this is not only recording the words of person a), but also regarding person b) as a suspect because they didn't disagree with person a) or didn't disagree robustly enough. Verbal non-action will increasingly be scrutinised too if this carries on.

Sorry, should have written that as person 'A' and person 'B'

This might sound daft, but isn't this a copy of health and safety practice?
We've all seen the iceberg/pyramid diagram which shows for every one fatal accident, there's six non-fatal, and umpteen minor injuries, etc etc until at the bottom there are eleventy billion "near miss" incidents.

Which is true.

But then some bright spark works out if you avoid the eleventy billion near misses nobody ever dies. So they send a small army of ferrets to ferret about and point out every possible near miss, whilst letting major faults go unfixed.

There might be a use for incidents as intel, but to be logged against a person's name without them even knowing is ridiculous. And there's nothing to suggest it would prevent any deaths. Apologies to the coppers on this thread, I know how busy you are, but someone being cited for a tweet shouldn't exist in the same world as a battered pensioner waiting five days for someone to pop round long after a burglary.

Precisely - but there should be at least a method of recording such tweets etc - even if it means that no officer is deployed to it.

That way you will build a picture of someone - might never be used, but it could be vital in safeguarding someone.

For example - if we have a victim of abuse who we a trying to put in a place a safety, it becomes important to know the back ground of the people we are putting them with. So, one of the house occupants may not have any criminal records, but they have an extensive history of a specific hate speech etc. Might effect where we put them.

@Wiltshire90, thank you for your informed and informative posts. They are appreciated.

@Felix125

Precisely - but there should be at least a method of recording such tweets etc - even if it means that no officer is deployed to it.

That way you will build a picture of someone - might never be used, but it could be vital in safeguarding someone.

For example - if we have a victim of abuse who we a trying to put in a place a safety, it becomes important to know the back ground of the people we are putting them with. So, one of the house occupants may not have any criminal records, but they have an extensive history of a specific hate speech etc. Might effect where we put them.

That's way more money than we currently spend, though. We have suspected terrorists on watch lists we can't keep tabs on because it's too expensive and there are too many of them.

It's probably worse to create an evidence folder on someone and then not have the resources to be able to put the pieces of the jigsaw together than it is to not collect jigsaw pieces in the first place.

So how does the resource allocation thing work then? How is it happening that the cops are spending time on ideologically impure Tweets while not having time to deal with rapes and burglaries?

My hazy hypothesis is that they allocate a bunch of useless morons to the rainbow unit, who then have to justify their existence by posing with bondage puppies at pride and zealously persecuting GC Twitter users and autistic teens while other officers get on with the actual work of policing. I would be very grateful for some actual insight to replace my hypothesis.

Wiltshire90
The point is these non crime incidents and guidance around them come from the College of Policing not politicians. It is down to each force to decide how it applies the guidance. Your force may not prioritise, others do.

What is being asked is that freedom of speech is given due weight, the police have a duty to protect the right to freedom of speech.

The other problem is there is no filtering of complaints, which are recorded and kept for years without proper investigation. Collecting intelligence should be proportionate, at the moment it is simply the perception of complainants.

Perhaps hate crimes should include sex as a protected characteristic

They should; but they don't; and they never will because apparently the police would be swamped with the amount of hate by men against women and it would take up loads of time.

But certain TQ+ police networks can pressure their forces to trample all over freedoms of belief, expression and association.

Crazy stuff.

@allmywhat

So how does the resource allocation thing work then? How is it happening that the cops are spending time on ideologically impure Tweets while not having time to deal with rapes and burglaries?

My hazy hypothesis is that they allocate a bunch of useless morons to the rainbow unit, who then have to justify their existence by posing with bondage puppies at pride and zealously persecuting GC Twitter users and autistic teens while other officers get on with the actual work of policing. I would be very grateful for some actual insight to replace my hypothesis.

Tends to be civilian police staff as apposed to officers.

So, if its a case of information being passed by a member of the public on an individual - say Fred Bloggs. So, Fred Blogg's page will be updated that there is information (graded on the source - accurate, can not be judged, untested source, suspected to be false) that Fred Bloggs has posted hate speech on a specific account or attended a rally which is antisemitic. Then as an officer, if I'm dealing with a crime that involves Fred Bloggs - I can put his name in the system and look at all these intelligence entries which may be relevant to the crime I'm dealing with.

TrevorFountain

I don't think it would take up that much time if sex, age etc are included as a protected characteristic. Like i say above, its an intelligence log which will be graded and filtered depending on the source. I don't think it will be a case of being swamped by such intelligence logs.

People were being encouraged to report the BBC article about lesbians being coerced into sex as a hate “crime”. They should mean incident, but they use crime instead, either through ignorance or wilfully to conflate the two.

mobile.twitter.com/christineburns/status/1453265486699958276

So an initiative to help police track racism in the wake of the murder of Stephen Lawrence is now being used to record offence taken at pointing out some males are rapists.

I’ve said it before, I am surprised Doreen Lawrence isn’t more angry at this abuse of the system. It will eventually be stopped because it’s because so vexatious and real community racism won’t be noted anymore.

@TrevorFountain

Perhaps hate crimes should include sex as a protected characteristic

They should; but they don't; and they never will because apparently the police would be swamped with the amount of hate by men against women and it would take up loads of time.

But certain TQ+ police networks can pressure their forces to trample all over freedoms of belief, expression and association.

Crazy stuff.

It also wouldn't be long before misandry would be considered a hate crime and the rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and general every day misogyny hate crimes (from schools to the work place) are overshadowed.