College of policing new guidelines out

[Imnobody4]

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1550141987290075142?t=7F1BVlutR1Nf8uxZJNhgEQ&s=09

Haven't read this yet but after a quick glance I think they're takjng the piss. Get this example:

Trivial, malicious and irrational complaints

Trivial, malicious and irrational complaints must not be recorded as a non-crime hate incident. Similarly, individuals who are engaged in legitimate debate, for example, on political or social issues, should not be stigmatised simply because someone is offended.

Example

A person sees an online report that authorities have responded to community concerns about anti-transgender posters that were posted at the scene of an LGBT+ Pride event.

Local authorities removed the posters and the police initially recorded the complaint as a non-crime incident, adding a hostility qualifier on the grounds of hostility to transgender identity. This was because the posters were assessed as containing threatening material.

The person who saw the online report, reports a hate crime/incident on the grounds of religious hostility, saying the local authorities have offended their philosophical faith around biological gender by removing the posters.

The police review the record and decide it does not amount to a crime and that it is not a hate incident because the complainant is asking the police to record legal activity by the local authority as a crime or incident and this would not be rational. The police notify the complainant about their decision to record an incident.

Bit of a cheek them talking about ‘irrational’ anything.

That's funny.... really funny

What is biological gender?

Sarah Phillimore has done an analysis. I really don't know what to make of it.
sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/non-crime-hate-incidents-updated

I don't get it.

One group of people being offended by freedom of expression is a hate incident, but another group of people being offended by restriction of their freedom of expression is not a hate incident?

Freedom of speech = hate incident.
Prevention of freedom of speech =/= hate incident.

They're making up so much in these hypotheticals, I wonder if they felt this was just one more for the road.

That, or the CoP is having its own soma schedule.

"Swallowing half an hour before closing time, that second dose of soma had raised a quite impenetrable wall between the actual universe and their minds."

www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html

Trivial, malicious and irrational complaints must not be recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

This is hilarious - who judges if a complaint is rational, or non-trivial, or not malicious? They can't dig themselves out of this hole. Either every NCHI gets recorded, or there is a process to fairly judge which ones are legitimate, in which case they need to set out what that procedure is. Is it just PC Mike assuming someone's taking the piss because they can't see why anyone would be bothered about something so trivial as misogyny, or thinking that certain people are more likely to be 'irrational'?

That's such a weirdly pointed example that it seems like a deliberate f--- you to the likes of us, doesn't it? How bloody weird. Has anyone ever actually reported the removal of posters as a hate incident?

I'd say it's good news overall, but someone in the College of Policing couldn't resist having a dig.

”This is hilarious - who judges if a complaint is rational, or non-trivial, or not malicious”

To be fair, I think there will be many occasions when officers make a judgement on whether to pursue a case, based on their own assessment of the circumstances and the witness/complainant.

I think that the police ought to be able to assess, for example, whether a reported incident is likely to genuinely involve hatred or prejudice, or whether the person reporting might be the one acting maliciously or out of prejudice.

Any report made by a person who believes they have been the victim of “hate” has a degree of subjectivity. In general the police have to try to make a more objective assessment. Of course this is imperfect, because police officers have their own prejudices, but an attempt should still be made, particularly in light of the fact that there appears to be a significant increase in malicious reporting by certain members of the trans community. For example, S. Hayden has now been identified as a vexatious litigant, I believe. That ought to have an effect on whether the police take any reports from Hayden seriously in future.

I work in a job where we have to investigate complaints made by one member of the public against another. I think more than 50% of the cases are made by people using us as a weapon to harass people they have a dispute with. I have to make judgement calls all the time.

The problem with the idea that all incidents should be recorded, regardless of whether the police agree that there is any evidence of “hate” is that it makes using the police as a weapon against someone you dislike easy. Therefore the policy was challenged by Fair Cop. Whether such incidents should be recorded at all is another matter, but I think if there is genuine, objectively evidence that the person reported is motivated by hatred or prejudice, then I think it could be a useful tool, which was the intention behind it.

The problem here according to previous posters (though I haven’t read the linked article yet) is not that the police are expected to make judgement calls, but that the examples given show how prejudiced the college of policing are around this subject. They have made the changes reluctantly and dragged their feet throughout because of that prejudice, and (according to previous posters) it shows in the way they have executed it.

That example given in the ‘new’ guidance is ludicrous and offensive.

As a pp said, it really is a ‘fuck you’.

I’ve read Sarah Phillimore’s initial piece (for which, thank you); and I hope she writes more because I’m struggling to follow what the College of Policing’s guidance actually is. It’s all over the shop.

The example seems written in the same spirit as the kind of tweets that go "Sure, freedom of speech is important. Like my freedom to tell you to shut up and to urge your employer to fire you!"

Adding my thanks to Sarah Phillimore for her analysis.

Im sure there is still a pro-woman / antitrans debate in there still in terms of the wording...

I think the underlying point still remains about pre-judging the situation based on the complaint coming from a particular type of person rather than on actual evidence or motive.

Thats a fundamental policing issue.

Well the police are spinning it as "police needed to focus on cutting crime, take a commonsense approach and “not get involved in debates on Twitter”.

Given the appalling rise and crime and reduction in them catching criminals, they had little option. But the incoherent guidelines they've produced suggest there's still plenty of opportunities for them to continue to hate on GC women?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/553d19a2-093c-11ed-a986-fc91b4ad48f0?shareToken=e088761e1b0a97433f0f6e3758aba839

For example, S. Hayden has now been identified as a vexatious litigant, I believe. That ought to have an effect on whether the police take any reports from Hayden seriously in future.

If that's accurate, it's unaccountable that SH was recently interviewed on TV and called for a 'lowering of toxicity in the debate'. What are these researchers doing (thinking of Justin Webb not being briefed by his researchers for 'Today' on who Fallon Fox was).

twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1549701713262690310?s=20&t=urvJ92e6eweLVP9i_0yjkA

Tbf the fact checking and guest selection on GB news generally has been highly questionable since its launch in terms of 'balance' and journalistic integrity.

Many of those respected names who initially signed up for it, quit pretty soon after they started working there for precisely this reason.

Will there be a sharp drop in 'hate' incidents now? We will all be able to rejoice that the virtual world, like the real world, is safe for trans people.
Or will they be upset that one of their tricks for distorting information has been removed?

Well that's a muddled lot of babble isn't it?

Two thoughts at the top really:

1. Who wrote that? Because at a guess, a lot of it was provided by a helpful lobby group member and I would love to know their qualifications to comment on law, policing and all nine characteristics and their issues beyond 'personally has one of the characteristics which has formed the basis of an entire career'.

2. Isn't it odd how it's all about the T? It's as if no other protected characteristic exists and the law isn't there for anyone else. (See question 1.)

I suppose I would also like to know just how often a woman has attempted to weaponise this particularly silly bit of police busy work, compared to how often people have done so in the name of TQ+ politics? Because I doubt it's much. We've never for example seen anyone arrested for the death threats/rape threats we're all now wading neck deep in that seep out of this political movement on Twitter like a broken sewer.

Would have made a great script for Neighbours.

I've been thinking about the CoP guidance in response to this thread.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4595063-i-reported-an-aggressive-jehovahs-witness-to-the-police-aibu

The protected characteristics for hate do not include sex. It is therefore interesting that the example, whilst so politically biased, admits that GC belief is covered by hate legislation. As such all those offensive stickers and tweets are also covered. I look forward to the local authorities and police leaping into action over them........

The problem with leaving it up to the police to decide what is irrational etc is they are all being trained by stonewall.

That is such a bizarrely convoluted example

I can't get past biological gender. WTAF is that?? SEX you dolts, SEX.