Home secretary says freedom of speech to be prioritised over taking offence under draft guidelines

[IwantToRetire]

Suella Braverman said the draft guidelines, which will go before parliament on Monday, will prevent police “wrongly getting involved in lawful debate”.

Under the guidance, the police will only record so-called non-crime hate incidents when it is “absolutely necessary and proportionate” and not “simply because someone is offended”, the Home Office said in a release.

Personal data will only be recorded for incidents “motivated by intentional hostility” and where there is a “real risk of significant harm”.

Ms Braverman said officers must have freedom of expression “at the forefront of their minds”.

“The new code will ensure the police are prioritising their efforts where it’s really needed and focusing on tackling serious crimes such as burglary, violent offences, rape and other sexual offences.”

Under a section of the draft entitled “necessary considerations – proportionality, common-sense approach, and least intrusive method”, the guidelines reference the case of ex-police officer Harry Miller.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/suella-braverman-police-freedom-speech-b2299495.html

Government statement

www.gov.uk/government/news/police-will-prioritise-freedom-of-speech-under-new-hate-incident-guidance

motivated by intentional hostility

So if the perpetrator says that they didn't intend to be hostile, it won't get recorded?

I am afraid I don't have any confidence in the police whatsoever that they will be able to "apply common sense" to these situations. They rarely do anything about hate crimes in any case, let alone hate incidents, but at least it was possible to record the stats before.

It still doesn't stop police pursuing crimes like malicious communications etc as they are doing with KJK. Harry Miller noticed they had switched to doing this.

If you saw in my original quote in fact it was the Miller case that the Government are using as evidence that the police have been going to far.

So at least they have recognised that there. Whether that will extend of women being harrassed by unwarranted complaints I'm not sure.

In fact I wonder if those in Government even know how misused this aspect of "hate crime" has been.

But as with so much else the problem seems to be that too many organisations, not just the police, but schools etc., rely on Stonewall to tell them what is the "correct" approach.

If only we had a genuinely feminist organisation ie working for the rights of those born female, who had enough money and celebrity backers, who could offer training on how to do your work without impinging on women's rights.

It still doesn't stop police pursuing crimes like malicious communications etc as they are doing with KJK.

That is a crime, which requires a court to convict. I'm not saying abuse of process can't happen (it clearly has) but it's a different problem from the widespread abuse of police power to surveil, record and 'check people's thinking' for things that aren't even crimes.

From the link upthread is the draft code. It looks like it will be statutory? Says "must have regard to" in it:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-draft-code-of-practice

Broadly it seems welcome news? Especially the personal data elements?

It won't work. They get points for pursuing non hate crimes. It is easy and they will continue to do it with enthusiasm. Like homosexuality, appealing to the police for a bit of common sense failed and they continued to entrap gay men until such time It was decriminalised. It is the same here, the non hate crime legislation will have to be repealed.

Non hate crime incidents are an absurdity and need scrapped. If it's not a crime, the police should not be involved.

They get points for pursuing non hate crimes.

I think you cant have read the statement. ie the government is saying this isn't a priority so there will be no points in it.

They have said other crimes, ie acts of violence and rape are a priority, which means these are the ones they get points for.

It at least shows that even if only because of Miller they have had to realise the whole hate crime thing has gone to far.

The least any of us can do is once these guidelines are in place is to find out who is the local representative on your local police board and ask them to make sure they have understood the new directive.

But as i said upthread, because Stonewall etc., are so well organised they will no doubt try and make out that it should be still action police should take.

It wont stop until they know we are monitoring them.

It isn't the government that the police are looking for points and strokes from. That's the problem.

The whole non hate crime thing needs scrapping altogether - the police aren't effectively managing actual crime, this whole non crime thing is ridiculous.

AND there needs to be government enforcing that no public funded body, supposed to be providing an impartial public service, can join any schemes or participate in activities or have any policies that involve alignment with partisan extremist political lobbies, particularly quasi religious ones. Since doing this means that they've picked a side, and are working with a political group who are strongly Them and Us and not only encourage but incentivise steering the law in a certain political way and hostility towards non believers framed as 'the enemy', and is incompatible with impartiality and basic professionality. That's the insane part.

Do they plan to do anything about removing the recorded ones on people's records that were to punish them for stating perfectly legitimate truths that someone from an extremist group did not like? The ones that would never stand up in court but rely on the person not having the time, money and energy needed to fight it through the court system?

And yes: the organisations and journalists et al who are followers of an 'identified' reality will just crack on saying 'the law is this because I say so' and steer and pressure public bodies to do what they say. Which is another fundamental bit of batshittery that needs putting down.

You cannot be reasonable with a person insisting 'this is the truth because I say it is' (and evidence to the contrary is either faked or is 'hate')

The problem is that non hate crime incident system is ripe for abuse by malicious reporters.
The point is that there is no actual crime so its not investigated, it goes onto an individual's police record and they're not even notified.
Anyone could get anything added to anyone's record without any checks or balances. The only surprise is that its not been more widely abused.
To give an example of how badly it can be abused, South Yorkshire police (them again) recorded a case of religious hate on the basis of a woman joking in a tweet that her cat was a methodist.
thecritic.co.uk/the-british-twitter-stasi/
I am pleased to see the new draft, but it needs to go further. "Non crimes" should not be recorded by the police, especially without any kind of notification or investigation. Whatever benefit may be wrung from it is vastly outweighed by the damage that will be done by malicious reporters.

Whatever benefit may be wrung from it is vastly outweighed by the damage that will be done by malicious reporters.

An excellent point.

As being discussed on other threads linked to various subjects on the ideology: a common theme is that legislation now has to be so clearly defined and specific, and planned to be watertight, because of malicious engagers who will seek to exploit any possible loopholes to the furthest possible degree.

I am pleased to see the new draft, but it needs to go further. "Non crimes" should not be recorded by the police, especially without any kind of notification or investigation. Whatever benefit may be wrung from it is vastly outweighed by the damage that will be done by malicious reporters.

I agree. But I am still delighted to see Suella Braverman speaking up for free speech.

Personal data will only be recorded for incidents “motivated by intentional hostility” and where there is a “real risk of significant harm”. Ms Braverman said officers must have freedom of expression “at the forefront of their minds”. “The new code will ensure the police are prioritising their efforts where it’s really needed and focusing on tackling serious crimes such as burglary, violent offences, rape and other sexual offences.”

All of this is essential. And I am glad to see this being done while the Tories are still in power. It’s all out there, recorded and, I hope, soon to be put into practice. Or at least being recognised that it’s meant to be put into practice.