Does anyone else not care if a 'hate incident' is recorded against them?

[WallaceinAnderland]

For some people it will mean absolutely nothing. Especially older people with no intention of applying for a job.

What does is really matter? They don't tell you so it's not going to worry you. There's no crime so you haven't broken the law. There's no fine, prosecution or imprisonment.

It's a non crime.

Personally I don't mind if it's recorded somewhere that I did not commit a crime.

Obviously people in work who need a clear DBS will be frightened into submission by this law but there must also be lots of us who aren't?

[ArrestHer]

I am fortunate i suppose in that I have DBS checks for volunteering with children but not employment. So I might find out, so I could kick up merry hell, but it wouldn’t impact my income. I’ll see if my scout leader comes knocking!

[Blackcats7]

It would upset me but not actually affect me practically. The threat of it wouldn’t make me disbelieve that biological sex can’t be changed and I won’t lie about that to avoid this.

[ChishiyaBat]

I don't care a jot, i'm a nmw retail worker so it won't affect me anyway, but I am vocal in real life about my beliefs too. I don't understand how telling the truth is a hate crime, it's madness. I do understand why people do keep quiet though, it's hard to be vocal about your principles and beliefs when you have to keep a roof over you and your childrens heads. It's just so sad that you can't be honest about your beliefs if you are in that position.

[BaronMunchausen]

I'm not sure there is a law? Isn't it purely a police initiative?

[ResisterRex]

What does it matter if you never did anything criminal but the police kept records of you regardless, on the basis that someone phoned them to tell them and tell on you? Is that a serious question?

[AutumnCrow]

A lot of perceived 'hate incidents' will become criminal offences in Scotland from 1/4/24, including tweets and other social media posts.

And it looks like you don't even have to live there to be affected. Crazy stuff.

[Apollo441]

It won't have any affect on me jobwise so I couldn't give a f##k in that respect but if it caused me to fail a DBS check for any voluntary work I would kick up an almighty stink until it was overturned and I received a grovelling apology.

[StealthSpinach]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5035721-an-msp-murdo-fraser-threatening-legal-action-against-police-scotland-after-his-twitterx-post-was-logged-as-a-hate-incident?page=1

[WallaceinAnderland]

A lot of perceived 'hate incidents' will become criminal offences in Scotland from 1/4/24, including tweets and other social media posts.

I'm not sure they will. Are they going to arrest, charge and prosecute people?

If it goes to court you are allowed to submit a defence. With these non crimes you are not allowed any defence, it just gets recorded.

[yetanotherusernameAgain]

But have we actually ascertained that will (or can) happen?

As I said on the other thread, if the police don't investigate the complaint further, they won't be able to identify the specific individual and therefore won't be able to record anything against that specific individual. Yes, they will have a name but it's just that, a name. Not a specific individual's verified identity.

So if Joe Bloggs complains to the police that Jane Doe said something mean on Twitter and here's Jane Doe's Twitter handle, if the police look at Jane's comment and decide it wasn't mean and they're not going to investigate further, then they won't know who Jane Doe is.

Obviously Jane Doe knows who she is, and might be concerned about the situation. But the police don't know which Jane Doe she is. Yes, they will have a record that "Joe Bloggs complained that Jane Doe tweeted something mean" but that doesn't identify who Jane Doe is.

Anyway, the police don't have a file on everyone in the UK, just in case they ever need to record something on it about you. If someone made an allegation against you, the police would need to investigate, if only to ascertain the identity of the specific individual who is the alleged perpetrator. For reported non-crime hate incidents where the police decide there's nothing worth investigating, they're not going to know the identity of the alleged perpetrator. The person's name, yes. But that could be the same name as dozens or hundreds of people in the UK.

[Mumoftwo1312]

Would it show up on a DBS check?

If so, I think it's grossly unfair not to have the chance to defend yourself in court.

If not, then I'm not sure what it's for. Who can find out if you've got one?

I have a unique name unfortunately (very rare surname and unusual first name, no one has ever had this combo). So I couldn't fall back on the Jane Doe thing mentioned above

[MarkWithaC]

@ResisterRex

What does it matter if you never did anything criminal but the police kept records of you regardless, on the basis that someone phoned them to tell them and tell on you? Is that a serious question?

Yeah, this. I really would rather we didn't have a society where something could be recorded with the police as an incident' based on something you said that someone perceived as hateful.

Not to mention that you can inform on people through a network of ‘third-party reporting centres’.

'first they came for the socialists' and all that. It's a matter of principle.

It all sounds like something you'd read about that was going on beyond the Iron Curtain and thank the Lord you didn't live there.

[WallaceinAnderland]

What does it matter if you never did anything criminal but the police kept records of you regardless, on the basis that someone phoned them to tell them and tell on you? Is that a serious question?

Well, that's what I'm pondering. In practice, to some people, it really does not matter, they will not be affected and may not even know about it.

[HarpieDuJour]

I can be unaffected and unaware of it, but it still matters!

[yetanotherusernameAgain]

@Mumoftwo1312

Would it show up on a DBS check?

If so, I think it's grossly unfair not to have the chance to defend yourself in court.

If not, then I'm not sure what it's for. Who can find out if you've got one?

I have a unique name unfortunately (very rare surname and unusual first name, no one has ever had this combo). So I couldn't fall back on the Jane Doe thing mentioned above

You might know that your name is unique but the police don't. They don't have an omniscient knowledge of everyone in the UK. So if someone alleges that Adiaohte Beioshto committed a crime, the police aren't going to immediately say "Aha! That will be the uniquely-named Adiaohte Beioshto who was born on 1/1/2000 and who lives at 1 Railway Sidings."

If the allegation is serious enough they will take steps to try to identify the person. Which will be easier if you have an unusual name. But they won't 'know' who the person is just from a name. And if they don't investigate and identify a specific individual, then they can't log anything against that specific individual.

[Retiredfromthere]

Could signing a petition be recorded as a non crime gate incident.

Although retired I have done the following in the recent past and may do so again. All required a DBS. The first four involved children so this was enhanced and would show NCHIs if recorded.
*worked in a school on a very part time basis
*run a local club which expanded to also offer juniors meetings/events
*been a respite foster carers for children with disability
*been a trustee of a national charity
*applied for a personal license (to run events for charitable purposes)
I never needed a DBS pre-retirement, but do need it now.

[Mumoftwo1312]

@yetanotherusernameAgain

You might know that your name is unique but the police don't. They don't have an omniscient knowledge of everyone in the UK. So if someone alleges that Adiaohte Beioshto committed a crime, the police aren't going to immediately say "Aha! That will be the uniquely-named Adiaohte Beioshto who was born on 1/1/2000 and who lives at 1 Railway Sidings."

If the allegation is serious enough they will take steps to try to identify the person. Which will be easier if you have an unusual name. But they won't 'know' who the person is just from a name. And if they don't investigate and identify a specific individual, then they can't log anything against that specific individual.

OK, that's reassuring. I think. I thought that, say, the electoral roll or the passport office had lists of names and addresses that the police could access? And I suppose it would depend on if the person reporting me knew where I lived, worked etc.

This is as yet hypothetical in my case.

[Feckedupbundle]

I think that it's an absolute disgrace and is going to end badly for the police.
I'm self employed,so no DBS or employer to worry about. In all likelihood I'd never know if one was issued against me,but the thought of being listed by the police as hateful,purely for believing in science and biology is like something out of a dystopian nightmare.

[justgotosleepffs]

Even if you're not bothered about your own police record, do you not see it as a problem that anyone in a job which requires a DBS is forced to toe the party line? So teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, anyone wanting to volunteer to help at their child's football club? Do you really not care about a society where everyone in those professions is prevented from sharing a particular belief, so that those holding those beliefs are less likely to choose those professions?

[WallaceinAnderland]

@justgotosleepffs see my OP where I said

"Obviously people in work who need a clear DBS will be frightened into submission by this law..."

I think my point is that we are so used to being called transphobic and bigots that it's become meaningless now and we don't care.

These non crimes are also meaningless.

So could a 'hate crime' be come to be seen the same way i.e. everyone has one.

[SirChenjins]

I’m not bothered personally but I’m furious that people are being put on this position. I think this is going to end very badly for the SG and Police and I look forward to seeing the first test cases coming about which will show the ‘legislation’ to be completely unworkable.

[WallaceinAnderland]

I think it's unworkable too.

[Cauliflowery]

The very people who really should be empowered to speak up, for the sake of safeguarding children and vulnerable people, are the very ones silenced.

It is awful.

But I'm heartened by women willing to take one for the team. Thanks.

[littlbrowndog]

I have to get a DBS and then I won’t even know if a hate incident has been committed by me ? Would it prevent me getting a DBS?

[ResisterRex]

@WallaceinAnderland

@justgotosleepffs see my OP where I said

"Obviously people in work who need a clear DBS will be frightened into submission by this law..."

I think my point is that we are so used to being called transphobic and bigots that it's become meaningless now and we don't care.

These non crimes are also meaningless.

So could a 'hate crime' be come to be seen the same way i.e. everyone has one.

I do see what you mean but I think it's unacceptable. It's such a slippery slope.