JKR vs Police Scotland?

[IcakethereforeIam]

Tras are trying to get JKR arrested.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/10/trans-activists-scottish-police-arrest-jk-rowling-crime/

https://archive.ph/5TEU4 highland fling yourself over the paywall, cos Scottish!

Thought to give IW a break.

The Hate Crime...crime(?) comes into force on 1st April, according to the article. The SNP has not engaged with any of the organisations who have expressed concerns and no-one knows what, if any, training the Police have been given.

Absolutely anything apart from misogyny. Right?

LOL at a man trying to intimidate JKR 🤣. The arrogance of him thinking he stands even a slight chance is hilarious. She will squash him underfoot like a slug on a path!

No. Its the perception if the person making the allegation that counts. 'Any other person' relates to the fact that anyone can report, not just an alleged victim.

So someone in the US can report every woman in Scotland, for example. The police can't question their perception but have to record, report, and investigate.

As ever, I'd be fucking delighted to be told I'm wrong.

Anyone can report anonymously online.

Is this why Police Scotland confirmed they weren't going to be attending all crimes last week?

Clearing the decks to create capacity for the April Fools?

ArabellaScott

So, for example, person A can complain about person B , and then person B can complain right back about A? And so on. And the police will just be shuttling backwards and forwards between the two?

Or ten? Or a hundred?

Is this why Police Scotland confirmed they weren't going to be attending all crimes last week?

But it still has to be recorded?

It could easily tie up entire departments. For ever.

I thought so Arabella but it's not clear therefore probably open to interpretation?

It's barking. All it needs is for people to disagree and the first one to get to the cops, wins.

They have a dedicated Hate Crime centre. It's a secret location. I wish I was joking.

They do arabella

Scotland is going more bonkers

no evidence needed to report a hate crime

I felt upset so reported my neighbour for looking at me in a funny way

And if there's no criteria to become part of the group with the protection, you could, legally, acquire that protection in the middle of an argument?

Both of you, in fact.

The whole of FWR could lodge complaints. Hourly.

Yes, Datun.

I forgot to add that you can also report hate crime to a third party reporting centre. Presumably this means civilians are being trained in how to report/record alleged hate crimes.

This includes councils, local LGBTQ groups, and oddly, a business that I can't find much info on, apart from the HMRC record of it, which describes it as:

• Nature of business (SIC)85590 - Other education not elsewhere classified
• 96030 - Funeral and related activities

https://www.scotland.police.uk/contact-us/reporting-hate-crime/third-party-reporting-centres/

Looks like it.

The Scottish government seems to be made up entirely of dimwits who can't even think one move ahead. Remember how people warned them of the possible consequences of introducing self-ID, including that it would be abused by male sex offenders? And they ignored it? And then the very first thing that happened after the law was passed was that a male sex offender, Isla Bryson, tried to abuse it? And then they had the gall to say that they didn't think Bryson was genuine. Well, no shit.

The same with the Hate Crime Bill. People warned them again and again about the consequences of having such a broad and wide-ranging definition of hate crime. And they ignored it.

And here we are.

'Third party reporting

Sometimes victims or witnesses of hate crime don’t feel comfortable reporting the incident to the police. They might be more comfortable reporting it to someone they know.
Police Scotland works in partnership with a number of organisations and groups, to take reports, known as third party reporting centres.
Third party reporting centres could be housing associations, victim support offices and voluntary groups. Staff have been trained to recognise hate crimes and help a victim or witness to submit a report to the police.
Third party reports can be made without giving your name. However, that might affect how much investigation we can do. Find your nearest Third Party Reporting Centre.'

Does this apply to the spoken word, or only comments in writing?

Do you have to know the name of the "offender"?

What if some stranger shouts out something homophobic in the street? Or a Scottish football or rugby fan throws nationality based insults at an English or Welsh fan? Or the other way round?

E.g. the fan whips out their mobile phone, rings the Hate Crime Centre and says "Some bloke in a ginger wig and a tartan hat just called me a sheepshagger, that's a hate crime" - the police have to record that?

Good point.

"In X's opinion the way you glanced at Y was a hate crime, even though Y isn't bothered about it"

"Well, in my opinion the way I glanced at Y wasn't a hate crime at all."

"But perceived it as one."

"But I perceived it as just a casual glance."

Chers it applies to anything. There is no threshold or criteria.

It really is a Stalinist state now, isn't it?

I'm deliberately not bringing up the Stasi, because it's not even slightly funny.

1984

The Bill is here:

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill

The first part is about 'aggravated offences', which as far as I can see (I'm not a lawyer, police, nor anyone with any expertise) is roughly equivalent to existing Hate Crime laws, in that it applies to criminal offences that are aggravated.

The second part is the

PART 2
OFFENCES RELATING TO STIRRING UP HATRED

And that's the really fucking mad bit.

To whit:

"1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
(i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be
threatening, abusive or insulting, or
(ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would
consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting
...
2) A person commits an offence if —
(a) the person—5
(i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be
threatening or abusive
...
For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person’s behaviour—
(a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does,"

My bold. The 'reasonable person' bit was added in, I seem to recall that during the Bill's passage through Scotgov. But it's utterly vague, and I can find no mention of 'reasonable person' in the police guidance.

So it seems that this is something that would be decided in court.

Humza's defence was that nobody would be jailed because it would be discussed in court first. So that's fine, because arrest and a court case is just no bother at all for most people.

It will probably be safer to wear a bag on your head when in Scotland, then you can't accidentally look at someome 'funny.'

This is beyond the Thought Police, because it doesn't matter what you were thinking or intended, it's how it was perceived that makes it a hate crime.

They've made hurting someone's feelings illegal?

Well. If that person can claim to have a 'protected characteristic'.

Here's the bits about defences and freedom of speech:

'4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if—
(a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and
(b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case'

And sentencing:

'A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both)'