Non-crime hate incidents - yet another not-at-all-Orwellian reality

[icehorse]

For the last 9 or 10 years in the UK, if a citizen is offended by the speech of another, they can file a report with the police who might log a permanent "non-crime hate incident" into their records. It is estimated that around 200,000 such reports have been logged to date.

Here's an excerpt from one of the links below:

Under the 2014 guidelines, police are required to log any NCHI brought to them by a member of the public — no questions asked. The guidance states, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.” In other words, police have no obligation to investigate the veracity of the claims. In many instances, police do not even inform those accused of committing an NCHI of the complaint against them.

Moreover, under the Police Act of 2014, police are required to release any information “the chief officer reasonably believes to be relevant for the purpose” of a background check. In other words, police may release NCHI logs to prospective employers performing background checks on prospective employees. How often police actually relay this information is unclear, but the threat is enough to spur a profound chilling effect.

From 2014 to 2019, police in 34 of 43 forces in England and Wales logged 119,934 NCHIs.

In 2023 the guidelines were revised, but remain largely as vague and subjective and disruptive as before.

UK police’s speech-chilling practice of tracking ‘non-crime hate incidents’

Non-crime hate incidents: code of practice

 

[Twilight Hue]

I no longer regard UK as being an open and free society.

 

[Secret Chief]

In the first link (the American organisation) it says
"Innocuous statements may be reported, like a soccer fan sarcastically asking a referee, “Are you blind?” "

yet in the second link (the guidance) it explicitly states

"debate, humour, satire and personally-held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of an NCHI
....
sets out that an NCHI should not be recorded if the report is deemed by the police to be trivial, irrational, malicious, or if there is no basis to conclude that it was motivated by intentional hostility"

which suggests the organisation's rightwing* agenda is being pushed irrespective of actual facts.

*courtesy of Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

I no longer regard UK as being an open and free society.

That's funny, many brits think the same about America.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's funny, many brits think the same about America.

That's because authoritarianism is on the rise globally.

 

[ChristineM]

That's because authoritarianism is on the rise globally.

More so In America driven by right wing funnymentalist and the religious right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

More so In America driven by right wing funnymentalist and the religious right.

I include socialist/marxist sympathizers in government just as equally.

 

[ChristineM]

I include socialist/marxist sympathizers in government just as equally.

Jolly good. Maybe its just America that gets all the press.

 

[icehorse]

That's funny, many brits think the same about America.

And I think we ALL have to defend freedom of speech, no matter which extremist is trying to curtail it.

 

[ChristineM]

And I think we ALL have to defend freedom of speech, no matter which extremist is trying to curtail it.

Except if you are female and laws are made to keep you as a breeding cow.

 

[icehorse]

I said: And I think we ALL have to defend freedom of speech, no matter which extremist is trying to curtail it.

Except if you are female and laws are made to keep you as a breeding cow.

Can you rephrase this, I'm not seeing how to connect the dots here. thanks!

 

[ChristineM]

I said: And I think we ALL have to defend freedom of speech, no matter which extremist is trying to curtail it.


Can you rephrase this, I'm not seeing how to connect the dots here. thanks!

You are not seeing how recent US laws are targeting women and effectively taking away their freedoms? Ok.

 

[icehorse]

You are not seeing how recent US laws are targeting women and effectively taking away their freedoms? Ok.

No need for snark, I'm genuinely trying to understand your point.

That said, you ought to have picked up by now that I'm constantly battling misogyny. So do you really think I'd support any measures that would curtail women's free speech or would curtail their other freedoms (e.g. pro-choice)?

 

[ChristineM]

No need for snark, I'm genuinely trying to understand your point.

That said, you ought to have picked up by now that I'm constantly battling misogyny. So do you really think I'd support any measures that would curtail women's free speech or would curtail their other freedoms (e.g. pro-choice)?

Its not point of of who you battle, its a point of fact. I see no reason Americans can gripe about British freedoms when
American freedoms are being rapidly eroded

 

[icehorse]

Its not point of of who you battle, its a point of fact. I see no reason Americans can gripe about British freedoms when
American freedoms are being rapidly eroded

We're all part of the same larger system. What happens there will happen here and what happens here affects what happens there.

The point of the OP is that we should ALL be fighting for EVERYONE's freedom of speech everywhere.

More specifically, I think in the US we're seeing extremists trying to chip away at freedom of speech. We're seeing it from the far right - of course - but we're also seeing it from the far left. We need to fight ANY EXTREMIST who is trying to undermine free speech.

 

[Soandso]

We're all part of the same larger system. What happens there will happen here and what happens here affects what happens there.

The point of the OP is that we should ALL be fighting for EVERYONE's freedom of speech everywhere.

More specifically, I think in the US we're seeing extremists trying to chip away at freedom of speech. We're seeing it from the far right - of course - but we're also seeing it from the far left. We need to fight ANY EXTREMIST who is trying to undermine free speech.

In your opinion, where does free speech end and hate speech begin?

 

[PureX]

I think Americans don't understand that the police in Britain are not primarily "law enforcers", they are primarily public servants. Such that giving citizens a means of making their displeasure know regarding the speech or behavior of other citizens would be considered a 'public service' important enough to engage in even though it is not a matter of "law enforcement".

I think it speaks well of them.

 

[icehorse]

In your opinion, where does free speech end and hate speech begin?

In the US the basic test is whether or not a bit of speech is likely to cause IMMINENT VIOLENCE. I think that's the test we should be defending. I understand that that test allows a lot of "hate speech" to be protected from censoring, and I think that's just one of the trade offs we have to deal with.

In other words, we can fight hate speech with more speech, but not with censorship.

 

[ChristineM]

We're all part of the same larger system. What happens there will happen here and what happens here affects what happens there.

The point of the OP is that we should ALL be fighting for EVERYONE's freedom of speech everywhere.

More specifically, I think in the US we're seeing extremists trying to chip away at freedom of speech. We're seeing it from the far right - of course - but we're also seeing it from the far left. We need to fight ANY EXTREMIST who is trying to undermine free speech.

As a mother of mixed race children i am really quite pleased that overt, insulting racist speech can be prosecuted.

 

[icehorse]

I think Americans don't understand that the police in Britain are not primarily "law enforcers", they are primarily public servants. Such that giving citizens a means of making their displeasure know regarding the speech or behavior of other citizens would be considered a 'public service' important enough to engage in even though it is not a matter of "law enforcement".

I think it speaks well of them.

Even though such highly subjective "public services" can be used by prospective employers?