Non-crime hate incidents to be scrapped - Government Press Release

[IwantToRetire]

Non-crime hate incidents to be scrapped to end policing of petty squabbles and free up officers’ time to fight crime in communities. (31 March 2026)

Police will be told to stop recording everyday rows and online spats, as non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are to be scrapped by the government.

Over recent years, unclear guidance has led to officers being called out to people’s homes over insults and routine arguments.

A lack of clarity around when and how NCHIs should be recorded, the rise of the digital age and social media, and inconsistent approaches between police forces have led to them no longer being fit for purpose.

In new measures announced today, NCHIs will be replaced with a system that lets police get on with their jobs – preventing and fighting real criminals to make communities safer.

After commissioning the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council for an urgent review of NCHI guidance, the government is now accepting all their recommendations. The final recommendations, published today, set out a series of common-sense reforms to give police a clear, consistent process for handling these types of incidents.

The new system will prevent police from recording lawful free speech, whilst ensuring that reports from the public, which may lead to genuine harm, get the right response. Police will still be able to keep tabs on serious community tensions and protect those who need it.

The Home Office will immediately begin working with policing partners to put these recommendations into action. The process of moving away from the old NCHI system has already started by removing the code of practice.

continues at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-response-to-non-crime-hate-incidents-final-report

What will some TRAs find to do with their time now? They will need a more productive hobby.

Unfortunately police Scotland have said that they will continue to record them.
Also Harry Miller has said in a bbc interview that some police forces are just recording them as actual crimes now without even investigating

I have seen the state of policing first-hand over many years, and I agree with the move. There have to be boundaries that the police work within.

Numbers of officers are strapped, funding cuts and constant high levels of crime to deal with. Within this, you also have people who perceive incidents to be crimes which are not, managing expectations and perceptions of what can and cannot be done, and what should be done. Constant scrutiny over police decisions from everyone based on hindsight and outcome bias, lack of trust due to isolated bad experiences, which tarnish the rest who work hard and try. Complaints that the police never respond or take too long or do a poor job with reported incidents, this was before they had to record and manage non-crime hate incidents.

Adding them to police work simply further increases the above and the unrealistic expectations of the police and what they should be doing, and sets them up to fail under already challenging circumstances, which will cause frustration and questions about why police aren't effective and efficient. And yet my removing the recording of such incidents will also cause complaints as everything should be reported to the police, damned if they do, damed if they dont.

Good and FFS Police Scotland. This was a well-intentioned attempt to stop racial crimes before they escalated but it was mobilised by TRAs but become a way of silencing women with most violent crime committed by men and most non crime hate incidents by women - I mean surely the name should be a clue that this is not a Police matter? Very worrying that some forces want to retain them to the extent of rewriting the law.

Personally I want to bring back that solid, calm desk sergeant beloved of the Ealing comedies, explaining patiently but firmly to the TRAs that no, misgendering is not a Police matter, that they cannot control the speech of others, and that no one has a legal right not to be offended.

I read that crimes against trans people have fallen for two years in a row. I wonder if that's directly linked to the police taking less notice of online spats?

So if police go to a job which isn't seen as a crime - its not recorded

How about they go to a house where there is some guy who has large amounts of misogynistic paraphernalia - is this just ignored and not recorded somewhere as intelligence

How about they go to a house where there is some guy who has large amounts of antisemitic paraphernalia - is this just ignored and not recorded somewhere as intelligence

I’m not an expert, but I don’t think this change prevents police logging local intelligence. Also I don’t think either of your cases would be NCHI’s currently anyway (if just having in the house).

As i read it, it will no longer be recorded.

Before, I could report Mr Smith at the end of the road for actively promoting antisemitic propaganda. Police go to his house and find a load of antisemitic stuff. But it doesn't cross the boundary of committing a crime

This would have been recorded as NCHI and intelligence against Mr Smith should he accelerate his behaviour.

Now, it won't be recorded at all - so it won't be recorded as intelligence either

I just think a lot of things are going to slip under the carpet

So it turns out the moment the example is misogyny or antisemitism, you suddenly understand why police might want to retain non-crime intelligence about escalating hostility.

The government is scrapping the NCHI label, not saying “record nothing whatsoever,” and the review explicitly says relevant non-crime incidents still matter for prevention, safeguarding, and intelligence.

Interesting how quickly that becomes obvious once it might affect someone other than the people you wanted this used against.

The way I read it - anything that is classed as NCHI won't be recorded.
So it won't be recorded as intelligence.
If it were to be recorded as intelligence - then that is a recorded NCHI
You can't have it both ways surely

I missed the bit where it said they would destroy records collected under this scheme.

Let me guess, like the illegally obtained DNA and fingerprint evidenced it will be "too hard" to erase, so the police )Home Office) will get a pass for refusing to obey the law.

I wish I could ignore laws that are too hard to obey..

Non-crime hate incidents were recorded against people's names, without them being informed of the complaint and entirely on the sayso of the complainant. They could be revealed on enhanced DBS checks, as I understand it. That's not intelligence that's a stasi-like people informing on others.
Of course the police should be able to record information about people that seems to indicate criminal activity, unfortunately non-crime hate incidents weren't that.

There's still the possibility they'll just go straight to malicious communication to enable them to continue harrassing people.

I expect large amounts of anti semetic materials would come under Prevent and terrorism procedures.

Exactly this.

I don't have a problem with the police collecting stats on non-crime offensive behaviour incidents (after they solve all actual crimes obviously), so long as they are not linked to an individual's name/record. "A person was rude to another person based on their sex on X date at X location", is fine, if they just want to monitor changing social attitudes etc. It's the attaching the supposedly offensive behaviour to the supposed perpetrator that's the problem, especially without allowing them the chance to defend themselves. It goes against all principles of justice.

Another example of how gender ideology piggy backs onto an organisation, institution or set of rules intended to be progressive and then hamstrings them with incessant, unreasonable, and unworkable demands from men trying to criminalise anyone who disagrees that sex and gender are equivalent.

This is my issue with it:

I would like the fact that Mr Smith has lots of antisemitic material at his home address - recorded against Mr Smith for that reason.
Therefore, it builds up a picture of Mr Smith.

And.... if Mr Smith starts to commit antisemitic crimes in the future, then the previous findings (these NCHI) become relevant in revealing the bigger picture about him.

Otherwise, his future crime will just be recorded as a one off even and he will just be given a caution.

even........ should say 'event'

The problem arises where there is no investigation as to whether Mr Smith actually has anti semitic materials or not, Mr Smith is unaware of these allegations until he applies for a job with DBS checks and his potential employer is informed that his record shows that he is in possession of anti semitic materials

There is no investigation needed. Police have gone to his house and seen it all for themselves, photographed it, recorded it on the body worn video etc etc

There is no investigation needed in any case, as Mr Smith so far has done nothing wrong. There is no crime that he has all this material in his house, so there is nothing to investigate and he has has nothing to answer to.

My point is - should it still be recorded somewhere on police systems....?

There is no investigation needed. Police have gone to his house and seen it all for themselves, photographed it, recorded it on the body worn video etc etc

That's not how it worked for NCHIs. It would be, I call the police and report Mr Smith has anti semetic material and they record a NCHI based on my word alone.

If I tell my local force that NoisyBrickDog has been posting Islamophobic hate, something I [in this fictional scenario] genuinely believe to be true because I [in this fictional scenario] consider the very concept of anti-Semitism to be an Islamophobic dogwhistle, should that also be recorded somewhere on police systems?

And if not, what is the standard by which you differentiate them? In the absence of a crime, an investigation, a trial, who decides?

This is not how NCHIs work.

Mr Jones reports to the police that Mr Smith has antisemitic materials in his house. The police record this on Mr Smith's record as an NCHI without ever investigating whether such materials exist, or whether they are in fact antisemitic, and without ever informing Mr Smith.

In that case, they should not just go on the word of someone.
They must be a visit by police - or the police (or similar body) attend on a different matter and discover things.

I just don't think in my scenario - when the police discover lots of hate things at a person's house and it doesn't meet the threshold of a crime - the police just ignore it and not record it.

And what if Mr Smith has an academic interest in exploring bigotry and studies - for example attitudes to Jewish people in Europe 1925-1945? And so you would expect a large proportion of his source material to be anti-Semitic.

Does it make a difference why Mr Smith has an academic interest, the nature of any political parties that he belongs to, his own faith, or the eventual use of the information he has studied?

In the UK we are allowed to think unpleasant and offensive thoughts, and are also allowed to express them, within certain limits and accepting of the consequences of expressing those thoughts. Up to recently it was relatively easy to draw the line between “niche interest” and spreading hate & encouraging others to break the law. Only actions that harm people, property and society (including the environment) should be actual crimes (IMHO), but as I see it the definition of “harm” has expanded so much recently that definition doesn’t really work any more.

We circle back to the general levels of resilience in UK society being much lower these days. Disagreement is characterised as hate, nervous anticipation is clinical anxiety and anything other than full validation is “phobic”.