How significant is this report that claims the public feels police officers are "more interested in being woke than solving crimes"?

[JellySaurus]

Home Secretary should reform failing police forces - think tank https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-627323366^

Very pleased to see this statement, and the BBC reporting it, but is it going to make a difference?

You don't know anything of the sort. Anyone can read this judgment. I have mostly quoted from it. There's no special knowledge or information needed to understand it, whatever police do with it in practice.

It was about non crime hate incident guidance, and the current CoP guidance was found to be unlawful in its current form.

Some discretion is allowed . But with hate incidents or domestic incidents it is not .

Then how would you have said "jog on"?

www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/0842

When someone is reported to the Met for a non-crime hate incident, are records held about this on police computer systems, if so which systems, and would this show up in any the following:

• Basic DBS Check
• Standard DBS Check
• Enhanced DBS Check
• CTC
• SC
• DV

Answer:

Like many high harm crime types, hate crime incidents are recorded on police systems even when they don’t meet the threshold to be categorised as criminal offences. This serves two important purposes; it helps to build an intelligence picture for police and can ensure that victims can be directed to support services if required.

The systems on which such incidents would be recorded are CRIS/CRIMINT/IIP and PND. Basic and Standard DBS checks would not include information pertaining to non-crime hate reports, but the information may be considered during an Enhanced DBS check. In order to appear on an applicant’s certificate, the information would need to satisfy the national relevancy and proportionality criteria. Incidents would not show up on CTC, SC or DV checks.

You have completely mis interpreted it

I don't think so. She found the current guidance on non crime hate incidents to be at fault. He won his challenge.

Facts of...recording a non crime that didn't happen its just someone's feelings got hurt which may end up with someone having that on their record? Even if the actual thing never happened?

And you wonder why we are fed up of this over-reach?

You can patronise me all you like but you're barely following the posts in this thread and keep misunderstanding people, so not particularly convinced by anything you say. But I hope you might have grasped why people criticise the police. We're not blaming individuals or "bad apples", we don't care whose department is responsible. We criticise the police as an institution, and people have lost confidence in it.

but the information may be considered during an Enhanced DBS check

As I quite clearly said. As you can see from the Mayor of London's answer to the question of whether non crime hate incidents are accessible in a DBS check, you got this one wrong, tutu. Enjoy your dogs and Netflix.

Dame Victoria Sharp, one of England's most senior judges, said: "The net for 'non-crime hate speech' is an exceptionally wide one which is designed to capture speech which is perceived to be motivated by hostility... regardless of whether there is evidence that the speech is motivated by such hostility.
"The volume of non-crime hate speech is enormous and the police do not have the resources or the capacity to investigate all the complaints that are made.
"There is nothing in the guidance about excluding irrational complaints, including those where there is no evidence of hostility and little, if anything, to address the chilling effect which this may have on the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118.amp

The officer in Harry's case got it wrong - instead of recording a NON CRIME they recorded a CrIME . That's what they got wrong .

Just seen this. No they didn't, you have fundamentally misunderstood what happened. He never had a crime recorded against him. His challenge was entirely about the recording of non crime hate incidents.

Speaking outside court, Mr Miller said being offensive was 'one of the cornerstones of freedom'.

'Being offensive is not, cannot and should not be an offence,' he said.
'Only when speech turns to malicious communication or targeted harassment against an individual should it be a problem.'
Speaking earlier to Talk Radio, he said: 'These people [College of Policing] are complete and utter idiots. They went all through the High Court trying to argue that there's such a thing as a non-crime, crime and non-hate, hate. They need shutting down.

'The consequences are far reaching. Up until today, a non-crime hate incident could appear on your record and police could send it to your employer to prevent you from getting a job or a promotion.
'This is a great day for British democracy and freedom. We have kicked it out the park.'
An anonymous member of the public complained about Mr Miller's tweets, leading to Humberside Police recording the complaint as a 'hate incident' in January 2020.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10328817/amp/Court-Appeal-rules-police-guidance-non-crime-hate-incidents-unlawful-landmark-victory.html

On a NON crime the system we use asks for suspect and victim details and I point blank REFUSE to use those terms as it implies guilt for a NON crime I always say reporting person never suspect. They are not a suspect.

No one cares what computer systems or notepads you use or whose job you think it is to deal with the problem. This is a systemic issue. People are criticising the entire institution.

It is the razor sharp logic and complete understanding of the current situation that has impressed me this evening.

Oh how convenient, you're not going to read any of the links. I'm quoting Harry himself. As I have also quoted the judge herself, and the previous judge in the High Court.

It's quite breathtaking Alison

It is good to know that these rulings are being cascaded through the rank and file with such efficiency.

Indeed. I think I'm going to send this thread to Fair Cop.

Right - go lobby your mp. Do it . Because this is a home office directive. Not a police one . Please lobby you mp if you want this changed .

The Government and particularly the Home Office are already aware:

Police should investigate 'actual crimes, not hurt feelings', Home Secretary Priti Patel believes.

The Government has announced plans to overhaul laws on 'hate incidents' following this week's landmark Court of Appeal ruling.

Senior judges said that College of Policing guidance which saw Harry Miller's allegedly 'transphobic' tweets recorded as a 'non-crime hate incident' interfered with the former officer's right to freedom of expression.

Miss Patel's proposed code, enacted by an amendment to the Government's Policing Bill, will align with the court's judgment that the current guidance was having a 'chilling effect on public debate'.

The Home Secretary is writing to the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council this week to set out the Government's position.
A Government source told The Telegraph: 'We want officers to focus on policing actual crime, not hurt feelings.'

I believe the College of Policing did rewrite their previous nonsense but it's still a mess.

This is interesting:

They have never been approved by Parliament, there is no legal threshold or independent evidentiary test applied to them and members of the public have no right of appeal against them.

Well I'm not
Giving them mine ! Bollocks to that !

Good for you, but @stillvicarinatutu this is the point we are making - the words and the construction of the sentences your Police Force are using are straight out of the Stonewall playbook which has been embedded in the College of Policing, etc., hence even though you say your particular Police Force is not a Stonewall Champion or in their Diversity Scheme (protection racket) their influence is still being disseminated into your Force as this wording shows. Hence it is rife in the Police and these are the words and required actions of a political lobby group, they should have no influence on the Police but they very clearly do and that is what we are highlighting, criticising and fighting against.

harridans. I find that quite offensive.

Can i have your name and badge number so that I can report it as a non crime hate incident please. Oh that also means it will appear on an enhanced DBS and you may of course lose your job but thems the breaks...live by the sword and all that.