The Yahoo version is truncated.
This is rest of it:
No immigration example
In the College of Policing guide, no immigration example is provided, but one is given about a listener of a radio show claiming the presenter has committed an “anti-British hate crime” by criticising British colonialism. The police treat this as a borderline NCHI example, but judge that the “perception of hostility is irrational” and that it does not constitute hate, prejudice or racial hatred.
Meanwhile, a clear example is included in Ms Braverman’s code of a complaint where an individual’s gender-critical views on Twitter being transphobic is rejected as an invalid NCHI.
But despite its relevance given gender-critical debates on Twitter and in Mr Miller’s case, it is nowhere to be found in the college’s guide, which instead sees the gender-critical person become the complainant who is upset about anti-trans posters being taken down, whose NCHI complaint is rejected.
Two examples about tweets and jokes being invalid NCHIs even if people are offended are also excluded from the college’s guide, which is being consulted upon ahead of Ms Braverman’s code becoming law after going through Parliament.
‘Overtly political stance’
Mr Miller, founder of Fair Cop, a group scrutinising police political correctness, told The Telegraph: “The police will not be schooled in the Home Office guidance once the APP comes out, they will be schooled in the guidance given by the College of Policing, which will mean we are exactly where we were before.
“The College of Policing has taken an overtly political stance. The Home Office’s examples were all very sensible and corrected the previous mistakes, but they will once again be shelved for the approved ideology of the College of Policing.”
Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group of 60 Tory MPs, said “the College of Policing has long been a cause for public concern” and called to “clear out some of the bad apples that are there before they affect the whole of policing’s reputation”.
“Policing only works by consent and the nonsense we hear from the College of Policing risks that consent, so this is another example of politically correct nonsense, perpetuating the appalling practice of arresting people for what they believe and think,” he told The Telegraph.
“To say it is Orwellian is an understatement; I think George Orwell will be spinning in his grave.”
Under the new Home Office code, reiterated by the guidance, police are told to use their “common sense” so they only record NCHIs that are motivated by intentional hostility and pose a real risk of escalating into significant harm, rather than incidents where someone is offended or by restricting free speech.
‘Determined to thwart her’
Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said: “The intention of the Home Secretary could not be clearer: she wants officers to stop policing our tweets and start policing our streets. But the College of Policing, which is an unelected quango, seems determined to thwart her and has given it a woke spin.”
The College of Policing admitted just three of its eight examples were real-life events, while the Home Office refused to say how many of its own were. The college has included a hyperlink to the Home Office code in its own guide, which it says constitutes compliance with the code.
Dept Chief Constable Bernie O’Reilly, from the College of Policing, said: “The public rightly expect the police to focus on cutting crime and bringing criminals to justice in accordance to the law (sic), not policing spats on Twitter.
“We have been working closely with the Home Office on the development of the new code to ensure our guidance is fully aligned and able to provide operational examples for officers and staff on how to implement the new policy.
“We will be reflecting on all feedback as part of the consultation before amending the guidance for publication.”
The Home Office said: “We have been clear that the police should devote their time to tackling crimes like anti-social behaviour, violent and sexual crimes, which affect the public most, and adopt a common-sense approach to policing.”
A spokesman added: “The College of Policing is currently consulting on its own updated guidance, so necessary changes can be made ahead of it being operationalised.”
Full Telegraph article - no paywall:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2023%2F04%2F15%2Fcollege-of-policing-free-speech%2F
If you click the link at the bottom of the article you also get this handy comparison:
Comparing the Home Office and College of Policing advice
Example 1
Home Office
On Twitter, an individual generally expresses their belief that a person’s biological sex is more important than self-identified gender, and that biological sex should be prioritised when decisions are made about access to single-sex spaces. Another individual believes it to be transphobic and reports it to the police. The reviewing officer assesses that the perception of hostility is irrational and the person was exercising their freedom of expression. An NCHI is not recorded, and the personal data of the subject is not recorded.
College of Policing
The local authority and the police respond to threatening anti-transgender posters at an LGBT+ Pride event. The local authority removed the posters and the police recorded the complaint as a non-crime incident, adding a hate and prejudice qualifier. A person sees an online article about this and reports a hate crime on the grounds of religious hostility, saying that by removing the posters, the local authority has offended their philosophical faith around biological gender. It is irrational to record an NCHI as the local authority was carrying out legal activity, not motivated by hostility. An NCHI is not recorded.
Example 2
Home Office
A journalist has written an opinion article about immigration. An individual is offended by these views and reports the journalist to the police, claiming xenophobia. The recording authority decides that recording the incident as an NCHI would represent a clear chilling effect on free speech and there is no real risk of significant harm to individuals or groups with particular characteristics. An NCHI is not recorded.
College of Policing
A radio presenter talks on his show about the history of Britain in colonial times. He talks about the role of slavery and claims that modern Britain is seeking to “sweep history under the carpet” and calls for a revision of modern teaching to prevent “injustice” in future foreign policy. A listener is outraged by the debate and they report an anti-British racist hate crime, saying it is inciting racial hatred. The police establish that there is no recordable crime and record an NCHI. The reviewing officer accepts the complainant’s perception of hostility but does not accept that the radio show is inciting racial hatred and they do not believe there is a real risk of significant harm or future offending. The perception of hostility is assessed as irrational, so a hate and prejudice qualifier is not added to the record. No personal data, except that of the complainant, is recorded.
Example 3
Home Office
A heterosexual individual (the complainant) is verbally abused leaving a venue popular with LGBT people. They report the incident to the police. A record of the incident is made on the force’s command and control system but it is not a public order offence. An NCHI is recorded based on hostility towards LGBT people, with only locational data and no personal details of the subject because the police judge that recording the location data of the incident will be sufficient. It would not be a proportionate use of police resources to investigate further.
College of Policing
A heterosexual man is walking through an area near a venue popular with the LGBT+ community. He is verbally abused in a way that is offensive but is not a public order offence. He reports the incident but does not believe it to be homophobic. An officer assesses that perception of hostility is valid based on previous incidents in the area and it may result in a real risk of significant harm or future offending. If the personal data of the subject had been known, it would therefore have been proportionate to record this. A sexual orientation NCHI is recorded.
----
Please complete the Consultation. This article plus Sarah Phillimore's thread of the Fair Cop's submission make it lot easier to do:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1647314718686625793.html
Sarah's thread - Fair Cop response:
This is unimpressive from @CollegeofPolice - gives reason for its new guidance on NCHIs as
"This followed a legal ruling that sought to strike a balance between freedom of speech and protecting vulnerable members of the public."
When what you meant to type was 'this followed a decision in the Court of Appeal that declared our existing approach was unlawful'
It wasn't that you were 'unbalanced' - its rather that you didn't give any consideration to Article 10 at all - the 'victim's' perception was King.
And I am quite worried about one of the examples you give of how the New Improved Guidance will work, shows that you are still wedded to the notion that any challenge to or criticism of gender identity must be inherently wrong.
So I hope many join us on #NCHIDayofAction on May 20th - lets see how many unlawfully recorded NCHIs are out there, and how quickly the police respond to delete them.
I disagree that the APP is easy to understand
"To understand and properly apply this guidance demands an understanding of the relevant case law around Article 10 ECHR and why it is so important - and why your earlier iterations of this guidance were found to be unlawful."
"It is concerning that you fail to mention this or provide a link to the Court of Appeal judgment, as it is central to ensuring that those applying the APP understand what went so wrong previously and are committed to making sure it never happens again"
"To present this APP in isolation to what went before, reduces the ability of those meant to follow it, to understand what they are supposed to be doing and why it is important"
"My concern about this is exacerbated by one of the 'examples' given in the consultation where challenge to 'transgender identity' is simply assessed as 'threatening'. This does not inspire confidence that who ever drafted the APP understands the true ambit of Article 10."
Here is the ‘example’
Example
The local authority and the police respond to community concerns reported to them about anti-transgender posters that were posted at the scene of an LGBT+ Pride event. The local authority removed the posters and the police recorded the complaint as a non-crime incident, adding a hate and prejudice qualifier on the grounds of hostility towards transgender identity. This was because the posters were assessed as containing threatening material. A person sees an online article about this and reports a hate crime on the grounds of religious hostility, saying that by removing the posters, the local authority have offended their philosophical faith around biological gender. The police review the complaint and decide that the actions of the local authority do not amount to a crime, and that it is irrational to record a non-crime hate incident. The complainant is asking the police to record legal activity by the local authority. Furthermore, this activity is not motivated by hostility. To record the complaint as a non-crime hate incident would not be rational
The police notify the complainant about their decision not to record a non-crime hate incident. In addition, they review the record and delete any personal data of the subject.
"If this APP is built on assumptions that some expression of views are inherently 'wrong', it is inevitably going to infect the process of recording."
"There needs to be a clear admission that previous iterations of this APP were found to be unlawful and a short explanation as to why This will provide valuable context for those who need to understand and apply it."
"You need to reconsider your 'example' of challenge to transgender identity as something inherently threatening, otherwise you are likely to find yourselves back in court."
"If it is built on a foundation that criticism of or challenge to 'transgender identity' is seen as 'threatening' without more, then this APP could have a significantly negative impact on those with the protected belief that sex is real and immutable ..."
"... as well as putting the College of Policing and individual police forces at risk of further financial and reputational harm."
"I refer to my earlier answers. The College of Policing needs to ask itself some hard questions as to the extent to which it has accepted its former approach was unlawful."
--
Consultation:
Recording non-crime hate incidents – have your say
Deadline 23:59 Sun 16 April
https://www.college.police.uk/article/recording-non-crime-hate-incidents-have-your-say