Revised code of practice for police re Non-Crime Hate Incidents

[IwantToRetire]

A “particular characteristic”

A “particular characteristic”, for the purposes of NCHI recording, means a characteristic that is protected under hate crime legislation:

• race or perceived race - a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
• religion or perceived religion - a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
• sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation - a group of persons defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both).
• disability or perceived disability - references to a disability means any physical or mental impairment.
• transgender identity or perceived transgender identity - references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment.

This code applies specifically to incidents involving the characteristics set out above, but there may be instances where a force deems it necessary to record an incident involving a different characteristic that is not covered by hate crime legislation. Although outside the scope of this code, in this instance, the recording authority should apply the same considerations as set out in this code, particularly in the context of the need to protect the right to freedom of expression and in relation to whether the personal data of the subject of the report should be recorded.

This is part of a very long a detailed statement at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice-on-the-recording-and-retention-of-personal-data-accessible

but there may be instances where a force deems it necessary to record an incident involving a different characteristic that is not covered by hate crime legislation

So someone can have a NCHI recorded against them for anything?! Any characteristic? Tall? Short? Fat? Skinny? Blonde? Freckles?

NO reference to sex and women's oppression

That's because misogyny isn't a hate crime.

And worse some women's groups have campaigned for it not to be, because nothing will be done.

But in not having it as a hate crime the consequences are that in law misogyny is not as sinful as other prejudices.

Who cares about women's feelings and experiences. Absolutely no one, including some women's groups who have appointed themselves to speak for women.

I thought the Judge in Miller's case said non crime hate incidents shouldn't be recorded? Did I miss something?

And worse some women's groups have campaigned for it not to be, because nothing will be done.

That's not why many women don't want it made a hate crime. It's because it's a Trojan horse to get a definition of misogyny referring to MTF trans people as potential victims, and thereby get self ID "gender" into the law. It would be used against women, is the argument. But I do take your point about misogyny being considered less important.

Or they think that hate crime legislation is a bad idea, almost destined to be used inappropriately at some point.

In order to be a hate crime as it stands now, the thing already has to be a crime. It's not like crimes motivated by hatred of women, or any other group, would be legal if not covered under hate crime legislation. Many crimes are motivated by hate, I can't really see why some deserve lesser treatment than others, just because it is not hatred of a special group.

I agree. I think it's not for the police to deal with non criminal behaviour.

That's not why many women don't want it made a hate crime.

Sorry but that is the reason why the groups with a high profile, ie providers of VAW services have campaigned for it not to be a hate crime.

And despite the impression that twitter might give you (used by less than 10% of the population) women service providers who directly lobby government and are consulted by government have actually argued that because the police wouldn't act it isn't worth doing.

Fawcett (or all groups) was the one that pointed out that in terms of "status" it means that crimes against women which are motivated by misogyny are not, in terms of the law, now classified as being a "lesser".

Attacking someone because of their race is rightly recognised as being unacceptable, and motivated by hate because of racism.

Same with attacks on lesbians and gay men ie homophobia.

Not having misogyny listed as a hate crime is letting men off the hook.

It is a legal statement saying women have less worth.

And undoubtedly some trans activists would try and hijack it, but for heavens sake, they do this with everything, and not to do something because of TRAs is letting them win.

On that basis we may as well just throw in the towel.

I dont think I have ever heard such of non sensical topsy turvy arguement. Dont let stand up for women because of TRAs might use it.

As it is they have their own category.

Talk about letting the victors trample all over you.

I know, lets not bother campaigning for the EA to clarify that sex means biological.

I hardly think the Fawcett Society can be trusted on this due to their TWAW stance.

The EA need to be clarified first, no point in making misogyny a hate crime until the EA is sorted out & soon. The Conservatives can’t be allowed to lose their nerve on that.

20. The perception of hostility or prejudice by a complainant or any other person alone is not enough, in and of itself, to warrant an NCHI record being made. The recording authority should take other specific considerations into account, as set out in this code, when deciding whether it is appropriate to record an NCHI.

Additional Threshold Test for the Recording of Personal Data
21. There are two subsets of NCHI record: those that include personal data of the subject, and those that do not (see paragraph 25). Personal data may only be included in an NCHI record if the event presents a real risk of significant harm to individuals or groups with a particular characteristic(s) and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic(s). The recording authority should utilise judgement to determine if this threshold has been met. This may include examples where the behaviour of the subject falls short of criminal conduct but may later be evidence of a course of criminal conduct (for instance, harassment).
22. The recording authority should also bear in mind that the risk of significant harm may be greater if the individual(s) who has experienced the incident is considered to be vulnerable. Further information on recognising vulnerability-related risk can be found on the College of Policing’s website here.
23. If an incident does not pass this threshold test, but all the other criteria required to record an NCHI are met, an NCHI without personal data may be recorded instead. In these instances, the recording authority should ensure that any personal data that may previously have been recorded on policing systems in relation to the initial incident report is removed. For example, if personal information relating to the subject was recorded by the call taker when the initial report was made, this personal information should be deleted from the relevant policing system by the recording authority once it has been determined that the threshold test has not been met.
24. If the criteria needed to record an NCHI are not met more generally, the recording authority will be required to close the original non-crime incident record. The recording authority should ensure that the non-crime incident record does not include any personal data before closing it. As set out in paragraph 23, if personal data has previously been recorded (for example, by the call taker during the initial report), this should be removed from the relevant policing system by the recording authority once it has been determined that the criteria needed to record an NCHI have not been met.

Might this be the change? I think recording these incidents was previously justified solely upon the perception of the person making the report, who was regarded as a “victim” regardless of whether common sense indicated that was so.

Well, at least the Miller case has been taken into consideration, and is referred to.

There is also extended reference to "a chilling effect".

Anyone living in the areas of notorious police forces might do well to print out the whole document and highlight paragraphs 27 to 31 and 40 to 47. Possibly others, but they were the ones that struck me.

Worth remembering that elections for Police and Crime Commissioners will be coming up, I think early next year.

I recently met a (Conservative) PCC who felt that police should stick to their remit of keeping people safe. I think he quoted Robert Peel:

'The basic mission of the police is to prevent crime and disorder. Our duties are dependent on public approval. This diminishes with our use of physical force and increases with our impartial service to the law.'

The police job was not to court popularity, whatever the cause, so no taking the knee or rainbow whatsits. I asked him later and he confirmed that Stonewall was not being used by his force. He also agreed that though his force was better than many others, they needed to ensure that all members were focussed on the job and that any rotten apples needed to be removed.

Turnout for PCC elections is dire, a good thing in that this is a bit of democracy that could work for us. Perhaps every candidate could be asked some key questions (any suggestions?) it might focus minds on what people want from their police service.

I dont think I have ever heard such of non sensical topsy turvy arguement. Dont let stand up for women because of TRAs might use it.

At one point Stonewall were campaigning for it and there was a Stonewall sponsored webinar which prominent GC feminists were booted off because they were afraid of the questions they would ask, so that should give you some idea of how much of a Trojan horse they were intending it to be.

Thread started by a TRA, unsurprisingly fully in favour

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4456705-Lords-Misogyny-Amendment?flipped=1&page=1

The EA need to be clarified first, no point in making misogyny a hate crime until the EA is sorted out & soon. The Conservatives can’t be allowed to lose their nerve on that.

I agree. If it can be confined to biological sex and linked to that, then I don't object per se, but I actually think the whole idea of "hate crime" is unhelpful. Especially when it spills into thoughtpolicing non criminal behaviour.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/feb/22/ill-set-no-limits-on-which-women-to-protect-from-hate-says-helena-kennedy

But Kennedy is immediately clear on how she would define the scope of specific protection she is charged with: “This is about hatred. Trans women, gay women, journalists, parliamentarians, all women get a whole lot of horrible stuff slung at them – disproportionately – and I’m not narrowing down those who receive it."

The Fawcett Society and Helena Kennedy took their pieces of stonewall silver a long time ago. Unfortunately they are yet to feel any remorse about that.

Yep.

I would start agreeing with this policy if there were some references to "behaviour connected with political and social controversies" and especially "incidents where the possibility exists that a complaint may be made out of spite or hostility, rather than for any material cause" plus "complaints repeatedly made by the same person in connection with the same topic".

It would be good to see a recommendation that the complainant will need to be carefully interviewed, followed by evaluation of their attitude towards the person they're complaining about. If this process is going to be allowed at all, the police have to recognise that it's easy to use it to retaliate against people one disagrees with. If that's not done, I think it's too dangerous to have around.