I literally quoted her earlier, not that you bother to read what people post. You aren't following most of the conversation, you keep misinterpreting what people say.
She was pointing out that current guidance on "non crime hate incidents" means that some incidents are recorded which don't actually involve objective "hate". It's not up to me to lobby anyone. This is a court judgment that CoP need to work with.
My bold:
Giving the court’s ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp said the guidance did ‘sanction or positively approve or encourage unlawful conduct … which violates Article 10’.
She said ‘perception-based recording’ has a legitimate aim ‘linked to the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights of others’, which is ‘sufficiently important to justify interfering with the fundamental right to freedom of expression’. However, Sharp held that ‘less intrusive means could have been used to achieve those legitimate aims’.
The guidance requires the recording of a non-crime hate incident ‘if the perception of the victim or any other person is that it is motivated, for example, by spite or ill will against a protected strand, irrespective of whether there is evidence to support that perception or not’, she said.
Sharp added: ‘Thus, the guidance contemplates on its face the recording by the police of incidents as non-crime hate incidents, which are, to put it shortly, non-crime non-hate incidents.’
The judge held that perception-based recording of non-crime incidents is not ‘per se unlawful’, but said that ‘some additional safeguards should be put in place so that the incursion into freedom of expression is no more than is strictly necessary’.