NCHI's - it's all kicking off!!

[lcakethereforeIam]

A Telegraph journalist was doorsteps by the Police on Remembrance Sunday for a year old tweet. They wouldn't tell her what the tweet was or who the complainant...sorry...victim was. I think it's may actually have been recorded as a crime now?

Murdo Fraser (autocorrupted to 'murder', add an 'ous' and that might be actually how he's feeling) has failed, so far, to get the NCHI recorded for his non-binary/cats tweet, removed. Safe to say he's not giving up.

Labour seem set on removing the ffs tone it down on the NCHIs guidance given to the Police.

The there's this article on Maya Forstater's legal troubles. Previous threads have been taken down for....no doubt excellent reasons. As it's reported in a newspaper I can't see why we can can't talk about it, within reason. I've taken the precaution of a new thread though jic.

https://archive.ph/o8yD8 none paywall click indisslink

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/gender-critical-maya-forstater-hate-crime-investigation/

Eta link and bad pun

From the Telegraph article:

The original author suggested that police had “picked a side” just weeks after the Oct 7 massacre and amid heightened tensions over the policing of Gaza protests.

ie the journalist AP is NOT the original author.

And the correction is on the other AP account.

She is being asked on twitter whether she is in fact the other AP but has not answered.

My understanding is that the "original author" who suggested that the police had "picked a side" is @benonwine (see image) not the fake AP. The fake AP post is a replica of the real AP post.

So this is the original post described in the Telegraph article...

https://x.com/benonwine/status/1725181885293236569

Your account of this confusing situation does make sense Signalbox.

It is certainly very curious. The question is, why would someone set up an X account. Duplicate AP's posts over a period of 3 days (3 days that coincidentally coincide with the allegedly criminal post), and then never tweet again?

Don’t be so nsive

The real AP made the original tweet that was inaccurate calling a bunch of Pakistanis “Jew haters”. When informed they were not Palestinians marching in London she deleted the tweet. Someone else with a parody account had screenshotted and tweeted it.

It was a deeply unpleasant inaccurate tweet by a deeply unpleasant woman who spreads misinformation about all sorts of things including immigration and vaccines. To imply she’s been framed in some way is just wrong. Whether she deserved a police investigation is a matter of opinion - she certainly needed to understand tweeting inflammatory stuff has consequences

Nobody is implying she’s been framed.

You seem quite muddled. U OK Hun?

I’m glad that you are able to post that and that mumnet lets you.

AP is not a person I’d much like. But she lives in a free country and the point of this story is about free speech.

X , she’s entitled to block anyone she likes on X, if you wrote that last line on X about soneone most people would block you, I’m blocked by posters on X even though I’ve never tweeted them. Women who get crude sexist tweets probably get blocked by her.

If she has lied about the police visit then she will lose all credibility. If however she misunderstood the actual charge being levelled against her, that’s a different matter. I’m shocked the police

a) called to her house for such a “crime”
b) called on a Sunday morning
c) on Rembrance Sunday
d) wouldn’t tell her which tweet was at issue
e) called the accuser the “victim”, not the “accuser” because saying victim implies the crime is decided, and that the accused is convicted. This is not like burglary or assault.
f) wouldn’t tell her who was the accuser

I’m amazed at the following

g) why not send her a letter and ask her to attend at interview, or phone her
h) for a weekly time slot, with a lawwer present
i) why release any of their interview
j) why release only some of the interview
k) why have the police not put timelines on when they upgraded the “crime”
l) why is it not clear that it is the Palestinian tweet, where did that come from, source, since the police have not confirmed that it is that tweet
m) the tweet she made seems to being critical of biased policing

Interesting, the victim is now the “complainant” for the Guardian. But the police told Allison he was the Victim.

Almost like she was being direct to “confirm her crime” by having to refer to her accuser as the victim

Why different language in the Guardian, because if they used victim, then they would be judging Allison, and labelling her the convicted, which is defamatory territory. And well they know it.

If we have say a murder case, the dead is clearly the victim, but the murderer remains the accused until conviction. And you can’t call him a murderer until then.

Police were acting as judge to Allison when they tried to enforce the word ‘victim’. That is not the role of the police.

I take it the Guardian think we should all be living in a police state.

True, except when women are attacked by misogynist mobs, or killed after reporting violent partners to police, or raped, or threatened with death, or intimidated by men in women’s changing rooms, or, well anything where women are victimised really.

Mustn’t bother the police with that sort of nonsense, when there are rude tweets to be dealt with!

I think our non-reporting is becoming part of the problem. We don't report because we are adults with basic resilience and intelligence who understand that in a democracy people have different views. Whereas the lunatic fringe don't care about democracy, they see the world in black and white and have zero self-awareness. They will merrily report away.

We see this on a smaller scale on Mumsnet ffs. We tolerate posts that are frankly borderline because we use them as an opportunity to discuss and debate. Opponents don't afford the same courtesy and to be blunt, the less 'switched on' MN mods fall for these tactics hook, line and sinker.

I virtually never report posts other than obvious trolls or vicious personal attacks on others. I've literally never reported a personal attack aimed at me, preferring to challenge a viewpoint. To be honest, I'm moving towards changing my approach because we are increasingly not dealing with mentally well adults who are able to have nuanced and controversial discussions. We are dealing with zealots and cry-bullies.

I don’t like AP much and I personally think the worse of her for the tweet that apparently kicked this off. However, I find it hard to believe that there was not far worse material at the time posted by third parties which has been ignored.
These stupid NHCI lead to what are effectively denouncements fuelled by the police. In this case, it is hard not to conclude that the police has followed up this particular denouncement with such vigour because the tweet suggested the police were not impartial. The result is damaging to free speech and damaging to the police who look both vindictive and idiotic in my view.

There are quite a few different issues here. First of all, Allison Pearson, misrepresented, either intentionally or accidentally, the police visit. They did not say anything about a "non hate crime incident" but about an offence under the Public Order Act, which is much more serious.

Second, the tweet itself is undeniably racist. She accused two men she didn't know of being "Jew haters," presumably either because of the colour of their skin or because they were holding what she erroneously believed to be a Hamas flag (in fact it was a flag representing a Pakistani political party.)

Third, that tweet contained two errors - the misrepresentation of the flag and the incorrect assumption that the police officers were from the Metropolitan police.

In her case, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have made such errors, particularly as a journalist. Checking your facts before publication, even on X, is part of the job. That she then compounds it by publishing an article in the Telegraph saying, untruthfully, that she was accused by police of a "non-crime hate incident" is quite remarkable. Why couldn't she have phoned the police station to check, if she couldn't properly recall what was said?

I don't, as it happens, think the police should be investigating what people post on Twitter, however offensive, because on the whole I tend to err on the side of freedom of speech, however unpalatable that speech is. However, Pearson now has the gall to threaten everyone pointing out that the original tweet is racist with a libel action because she apparently lacks the wit to realise that sending out libel writs right left and centre fatally undermines her claim to be a champion of free speech.

They did not say anything about a "non hate crime incident"

They said "an incident or an offence". I can see why she might have misunderstood, if she did genuinely do so, which isn't clear.

Another article in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/p5WHe

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/17/chris-philp-police-hate-laws-wrong-90pc-time/

Although 90% seems a bit pulled out of his arse, his opinion is that most of them are unjustified. I'm still struggling to understand the point of them, particularly if the person who has one recorded against them isn't even aware of it, therefore can't mount a defence or amend behaviour that they may not have realised was problematic. I don't know how common it is for someone to have a NCHI recorded against them without their knowledge though. I'm still firmly of the opinion that they were devised as a cheap and quick (no courts and associated time and expenses) way of shutting up people who were complaining about mostly petty occurrences. I wouldn't be surprised if in some instances there could have been a coin toss as to which of the two sides got the NCHI and which was awarded 'victim' status. Possibly decided by which one even thought to involve the Police or just got to the 'phone first.

I'm still firmly of the opinion that they were devised as a cheap and quick (no courts and associated time and expenses) way of shutting up people who were complaining about mostly petty occurrences.

Apparently, they have their genesis in the Macpherson Report, for example:

www.spa.police.uk/publication-library/policing-of-the-hate-crime-act-23-may-2024/update/

Wrong flag, wrong city, wrong people, wrong context. Full house.
AP should have remembered the old adage 'Measure twice, cut once' - think twice, [re]tweet once.

Bindel has been targeted by police too on a Sunday over a Tweet…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/twitter-hate-crime-tweets-pearson-bindel/

Archive…

https://archive.ph/aFPtz

“Bindel, a longstanding campaigner on violence against women and critic of gender ideology, said she was not allowed to know which tweet had prompted the investigation, under what category of hate crime it was being investigated, nor the identity of the complainant. The officers asked her to voluntarily attend her local police station to make a statement, she said, but she refused.

“She described the visit as as “Orwellian” and said detectives “could better use their time investigating rape and domestic violence”.

Years ago I remember articles suggeting that keeping some kinds of records of incidents like this would be useful in order to predict and prevent more serious crimes.

Particularly in relation to a crime that occurred, and people felt that there had been a real lead-up to it that should have been predicted if only there had been a way of tracking those incidents.

I think that's a reasonable observation, but as we see, the dangers of doing that where there is no crime also seem significant.

Yes, the whole point of them was to document the never ending sub-criminal offence racism that pervaded the community of Stephen Lawrence, as a way of monitoring escalating tensions. The constant verbal abuse, and the police inaction on such occurrences lead to trying to find a way to quantify/qualify both.

Now, people use it to document things they don’t like to read on Twitter/X. Some of the things people have reported as NCHI are shameful. The idea that someone tweeting something like an opinion, even if there are racial connotations within it, is somehow akin to black teenagers getting abused and harassed on the street is disgraceful. I had no idea who Alison Pearson was before this thread. The complainant saying her tweet has or might lead to to an “uptick of abuse” is pathetic.

I have said before, I am surprised Doreen Lawrence hasn’t stepped in to this topic. One of the legacies of her son’s murder is being sullied. At the very least, I think anyone who wants to record a NCHI should have to go in person to her office and make a presentation about how what they read/heard/saw is just as the same as racist abuse on the streets of London and see if she thinks it passes muster.

At the very least, I think anyone who wants to record a NCHI should have to go in person to her office and make a presentation about how what they read/heard/saw is just as the same as racist abuse on the streets of London and see if she thinks it passes muster.

If one person is given so much power, it needs to be a judge not a political appointment.

I was being facetious. I wasn’t suggesting it as the actual process. What I mean is I bet a huge number of people couldn’t look her in the eye and claim their hurty feelings are the same as the abuse her murdered son received (although there are some incredibly self-absorbed, conceited people who might).

I think if people had to justify their concern properly rather than have it recorded without the alleged offender’s knowledge, before it was even considered, some complainants might stop and reflect as to whether what they're doing is legitimate.

The fact I, as neither an intended recipient or subject of a post on social media, could report a person I don’t know because I felt offended, is ridiculous.

They then added: “It’s what’s been alleged and if there’s an offence we need to ask questions about then we need to do that.”

Except there are a lot of alleged offences you don't bother asking any questions about at all. So no you don't "need" to follow up every whine about a tweet someone doesn't like. And GC women have said that many times their reports of violent threats (which is actually a crime) aren't followed up on.

Sorry, NotBadConsidering, i missed that point.

One of the problems with hate speech and NCHI is they confuse being offended with actual offences. They also run with the idea that one small instant could spark a crime, but dont seem to have realistic guidelines about what that spark could be, so are almost randomly recording events.

The problem isnt that the public is abusing the system, its that the system is so poorly thought out, its easy to abuse.