Harry Miller's on another tear on NCHI

yourhairiswinterfire · 16/12/2025 11:03

I thought he'd got his NCHI expunged? Is this a new one? Worse than cold sores

I think it's worse than that, it looks like this is what Helen Joyce had happen to her recently. The police are recording actual crimes, not just NCHIs, against people on the say so of the 'victims', with no investigation, no evidence, and without informing them.

SuePerfluous · 16/12/2025 11:26

Jeez. You would say no, surely not but we know that it is happening.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/12/2025 12:30

yourhairiswinterfire · 16/12/2025 11:03

I thought he'd got his NCHI expunged? Is this a new one? Worse than cold sores

I think it's worse than that, it looks like this is what Helen Joyce had happen to her recently. The police are recording actual crimes, not just NCHIs, against people on the say so of the 'victims', with no investigation, no evidence, and without informing them.

YY.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/12/2025 12:31

Also means the “ look at all the hate crimes against trans people” is extremely suspect.

Raquelos · 16/12/2025 13:28

lcakethereforeIam · 16/12/2025 10:51

In the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/16/gender-critical-former-police-officer-take-mahmood-to-court/

https://archive.ph/hm7Ck

I thought he'd got his NCHI expunged? Is this a new one? Worse than cold sores.

Archive version here

https://archive.ph/hm7Ck

BonfireLady · 16/12/2025 14:34

Just to double check my understanding of hate crime....

In England (I appreciate it's different from Scotland, where they are standalone crimes), a hate crime can only be an uplift on an existing crime. i.e. you need to have committed a crime and if it is deemed that this crime was motivated by one of the 5 categories of "hate", a hate crime is recorded as well. This means that your sentence can be increased because hate is considered an aggravating factor. Correct?

So in this case, he was investigated for the crime of stalking/harassment and then the "hate crime" was recorded as an aggravating factor.

If that's what's happened, presumably this means that what's on his record is an orphaned (and unproven) aggravating factor but no crime. Yet the aggravating factor has been recorded as a crime in and of itself.

Is that right, or am I off the mark here?

I do remember the Helen Joyce case as well, but hadn't fully got my head around what it all meant.

Abitofalark · 16/12/2025 15:04

BonfireLady · 16/12/2025 14:34

Just to double check my understanding of hate crime....

In England (I appreciate it's different from Scotland, where they are standalone crimes), a hate crime can only be an uplift on an existing crime. i.e. you need to have committed a crime and if it is deemed that this crime was motivated by one of the 5 categories of "hate", a hate crime is recorded as well. This means that your sentence can be increased because hate is considered an aggravating factor. Correct?

So in this case, he was investigated for the crime of stalking/harassment and then the "hate crime" was recorded as an aggravating factor.

If that's what's happened, presumably this means that what's on his record is an orphaned (and unproven) aggravating factor but no crime. Yet the aggravating factor has been recorded as a crime in and of itself.

Is that right, or am I off the mark here?

I do remember the Helen Joyce case as well, but hadn't fully got my head around what it all meant.

Mostly right in that probably most 'hate' crimes will fall into that category of criminal acts and public order acts of harassment, the motivation defined in terms of hostility and prejudice, rather than the word 'hate'.

But that's not the whole story and it is not just an aggravation of criminality, attracting an extra punishment: there are separate hate crimes as well, specifically racial hate, involving incitement to racial hatred. And there are also specific laws for football fans chanting hate etc and for postal communications and broadcasting which use a variety of terms, not necessarily hate but say, malicious communication and could be considered part of the stable of 'hate' crime.

NotBadConsidering · 16/12/2025 19:50

For me, the nonchalance of it all makes my blood boil. People are being convicted of crimes without a trial, and we have no idea how many people it affects. This should be front and centre of any news organisation. You’d think it would have blown up after Helen Joyce revealed hers, but it’s been effectively tumbleweeds. It’s as though it’s too crazy to bother with as if people can’t get their heads around it has actually happened.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 17/12/2025 06:41

It's like they're creating a national poisonous pen database, where every petty grievance of the perpetually offended gets recorded for prosperity.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/12/2025 08:49

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 17/12/2025 06:41

It's like they're creating a national poisonous pen database, where every petty grievance of the perpetually offended gets recorded for prosperity.

That's a very good explanation. Adults spend their time helping children learn to socialise, manage disagreements and negotiate relationships in a healthy way. Then along comes the Hate Crime legislation that enables the socially inadequate & bullies to target people in secret and they end up with a criminal record.
It's insane - and the opposite of building a cohesive society

lindholmrowe · 17/12/2025 09:17

Does anyone have a source with more details than the Telegraph? In particular, what difference Harry is picking up between recording of allegations across different kinds of crime? It seems he was interviewed under caution about an alleged crime. It's standard to keep records of those, and to disclose under enhanced DBS, even when no further action is taken. Think of Sturgeon being all over the press when she was interviewed under caution.

I'm sure the actual allegations here were bobbins, and whoever authorised the interview under caution was wrong to claim there was sufficient evidence to justify one. But it sounds like there's something beyond this, that procedure formally treats some kinds of allegations differently. What is that?

Original poster

lcakethereforeIam · 17/12/2025 11:28

I admit it confuses me. I remember the Soham Killer, Ian Huntley, had been accused of molesting an 11 yo. This hadn't come up on his DBS, although it probably had the earlier name then. I think that was what led to the overhaul. I agree about the bobbins in Harry Miller's case but I don't want the safeguarding baby thrown out with the hurty words bathwater. What Huntley was accused of is radically different from a twitter spat. I suspect, knowing even now how poorly VAWG can be investigated/prosecuted by the Police/CPS, it may have been possible to prosecute Huntley for the earlier allegation. I admit I'm speculating from foggy recollections that I don't want to refresh.

OP posts:

SerendipityJane · 17/12/2025 13:22

I admit it confuses me. I remember the Soham Killer, Ian Huntley, had been accused of molesting an 11 yo. This hadn't come up on his DBS, although it probably had the earlier name

DBS wasn't around in 2002. After the Soham murders CRB checks were bought in (amid a wave of hysteria). Although it was noted that even had CRB checks existed, they would not have caught Huntley.

Abitofalark · 17/12/2025 13:52

lindholmrowe · 17/12/2025 09:17

Does anyone have a source with more details than the Telegraph? In particular, what difference Harry is picking up between recording of allegations across different kinds of crime? It seems he was interviewed under caution about an alleged crime. It's standard to keep records of those, and to disclose under enhanced DBS, even when no further action is taken. Think of Sturgeon being all over the press when she was interviewed under caution.

I'm sure the actual allegations here were bobbins, and whoever authorised the interview under caution was wrong to claim there was sufficient evidence to justify one. But it sounds like there's something beyond this, that procedure formally treats some kinds of allegations differently. What is that?

He's probably basing it on the definition of 'hate' crime, ( quoted in the Home Office Guidance on recording), which would be why he highlights perception):

Hate Crime
Hate Crime Definition
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or
prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or
perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or
prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."

There may be other distinctions in the Guidance. That seems the most obvious one.
Note that the police have to inform the 'victim' if they don't record it. Miller wasn't informed that they were recording it and only discovered that when he checked a year later. He'd thought the whole thing was done and dusted when he'd had an interview with police and explained his position and was allowed to go.

NewYearNewNameWhoKnew · 17/12/2025 14:40

So how is chanting offensive songs treated? I've reported racist songs in public (not at a sporting event), police did nothing

SerendipityJane · 17/12/2025 15:36

NewYearNewNameWhoKnew · 17/12/2025 14:40

So how is chanting offensive songs treated? I've reported racist songs in public (not at a sporting event), police did nothing

You don't have a right (yet) to not be offended.

Original poster

lcakethereforeIam · 22/12/2025 22:07

I hope this is an early Christmas present for Harry

https://archive.ph/ATey7

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/12/22/non-crime-hate-incidents-to-be-scrapped/

I feel I should observe a moment of silence.

OP posts: