Met Police will no longer investigate Non Crime Hate Incidents

[Ellerby]

This is very breaking. Evan Davies just said it on R4 news. Will try and get a link.

Bloody brilliant!!!

Exactly. There was no actual criteria for anything to be "hate" in a NCHI, only someone saying that they perceived it as that.

An extreme example but eg if I objected to my neighbour walking across my driveway I might say I perceive he is doing that because he has hatred for my sexual orientation. No crime needed, no actual sexual orientation declared, just that I felt he was doing that for those reasons. And actually no evidence needed that he did walk across my driveway .
The police may not choose to record or investigate it but if there are criteria for doing so for other "events that aren't crimes" then they need to be made clear.

It's awful that racist pricks exist but NCHIs did not address this in any way. If I had my way, nobody would reach any belief without full and forensic research into the the facts, but it's probably good that I'm not in a position to enact this as law! (I'm being slightly flippant here)...

Try this scenario.

You walk past the work kitchen and hear a colleague say 'I've always preferred white to black.'

You are offended by this racist remark. You go to the police and report your colleague for saying something offensive.

The police listen to your report, make no additional enquiries and record a non-crime hate incident.

Your colleague is not contacted by the police to say it is on their file, or to explain their side. They have no idea any of this has happened until they apply for a DBS check and discover they have been officially marked as a racist.

The conversation you overheard was not racist. It was about how they take their coffee.

You report it to HR on the grounds that it's gross misconduct. That's not to say it's a crime.

You CAN do whatever you like. Can you explain why you WOULD report it to the police rather than HR, and what specifically you would expect the police to do about it?

It comes to something when the police refusing to investigate actually makes people think the outcome will be fairer than if they did.

And even they themselves view it as a positive.

That's a terrible indictment.

Either investigate them properly and do your job, dismissing 90% of them, so pricks will stop weaponising it.

Or if you can't do that, get rid of the whole concept.

Meanwhile a man wanking in our shopping hall got off Scot free with case closed due to no witnesses. When there were plenty of witnesses. But those witnesses were then classed as victims. So not witnesses. But Bridget’s posted a tweet! Record that as hate incident without due course. Make it make sense!

So i'm at work
Someone says 'oh shes pissing me off the 'black b*tch' or the 'p- muslim or 'the Jewish -'
To another colleague, about me, and i hear it
I cannot report it to the police????

What people say is not violence, it's words. Can we please, please make resilience cool again? If somebody says something extremely inappropriate in a work situation talk to HR. The police should not get a sniff, it should not be on their radar.

If you are making disparaging comments about fellow workers I guess people will discover you are a dick. Why on earth would it be a case for the police? "Being a dick" is not something they have any control over.

This has been my experience with working with tips like this in other contexts. When you are trying to develop a larger picture, you can collect all kinds of things that might not turn out to be relevant or even accurate, but they also potentially round out a picture and can end up being important.

However, when you are talking about a police force, collecting intelligence on citizens, it seems to me that all kinds of questions are raised about citizens rights to privacy with this approach. even before the possibility of it affecting DBS checks and such. I know this kind of thing might be done when looking at criminal networks and be really important to policing them, but just general citizens? I would have thought some real justification was required for keeping information about people like this.

Is it really the main point though?

If I am having a conversation with my neighbour Bob about the evils of misgenation, and Rory across the fence overhears and thinks I am a nasty racist, and reports it, and they record it next to my name - I don't think that makes it ok, the main issue is still there which is the authorities recording information about my non-criminal activities, because they don't like my opinions.

That's the real issue, it is a direct attack of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, the right to speak about our beliefs and political opinions, and the communicate with others about them.

These are foundational concepts in liberal democracies.

You apply for a new job with an enhanced DBS which shows the NCHI and as a consequence you don't get the job. You might not know why so may still be unaware that there is a NCHI recorded.

You will be aware that a NCHI has been recorded as you receive the physical DBS certificate where it is detailed. A prospective employer has to request sight of your DBS certificate to get that information.

In liberal democracies except in Scotland, where our Hate Crime Bill includes chat inside the house between family members, no criteria, no threshold.

they record a NCHI against your name and you have absolutely no idea they have done this and no opportunity to defend yourself, you just never get another job that requires an enhanced DBS check

When you get a DBS check the certificate is sent to you. As soon as you receive your DBS certificate you will see if there are any NCHI recorded. Any incorrect details can be appealed.

It cost Sarah Phillimore £50,000 in legal fees to get a NCHI removed from her records.

Christ.

One persons hate speech is another persons free speech.

So who gets to decide which position is valid?

Horrendous. What on earth is going on

I can remember the gasps in our law class at college when the tutor stood up and announced 'I can stand in the park on a box and say 'I hate black people, I do not like them at all' and that is not a crime unless I invite others to violence against them'.

He was a great teacher.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

There are rapists, murderers, terrorists etc walking around free but other people can have their record marked just on someone's say so?

Hopefully when the police no longer investigate these complaints potential employers will treat them with the seriousness they deserve - i.e. largely ignore them. A potential employee being asked about it can say I have no idea why that is there or something like I believe that's my neighbour who disliked me objecting to him regularly parking on my drive.

One possible action is to swamp the police with SARs.

I agree it's not the main point; the main point is that NCHIs shouldn't exist at all.

But that poster had already had it explained to her several times that NCHIs are essentially recorded against someone's name in secret, and that if they are no longer being investigated, the person no longer even has the police calling round to discuss the alleged incident to alert them to the fact that they've been accused of something. And yet she was still saying, "Well yes, but if I had a NCHI recorded against my name, I would expect to be informed of it and have a chance to give my side of the story!"

No. You would not be informed of it, and you would not have the chance to give your side of the story. This is what people are trying to tell you.

The very concept of NCHIs is totally abhorrent though. If it's not a crime and not an emergency, it is not a police matter.

Who do you make the SAR to though?

Is there a centralised database where this information is held? Or would you have to make a SAR to every police force in the country?

Good point. One would need to do all of them, on regular rotation.

Perhaps someone can design an app.

Actually a centralised database must exist? Otherwise police checks would be virtually useless.