This is also nothing new. When I joined the job 21 years ago my first bollocking was for referring to a girl on my intake as 'the little woman', which was her nickname as she was a short arse.
A female recruit from another force heard me and complained to the training skipper.
When my miniature oppo found out I'd been gripped she threw a track, and was promptly told that it was absolutely nothing to do with her.
As a Prison Officer, I was once investigated because some delicate little flower overheard me use the words "some woman" whilst using the phone.
When interviewed, I asked if anyone would have been offended if I had used the words "some bloke" or "some chap". That effectively ended it.
I never found out who complained but I make it clear that if anyone finds anything I say offensive, they have the guts to complain to my face & not go running to a Governor. Who if they had any common sense, would have fcuked the complainant off in the first place.
The 'hate' element is an aggravating factor. There would always need to be a prima facie offence to justify the arrest and any subsequent charge.
The rules around retention of DNA are exactly the same. If you are found not guilty then you can apply to have your DNA removed from the database. But you have to apply, it isn't done automatically.
New DNA regularly solves very historic, very serious offences.
(I'm a crayon eating door kicker.....but I think that's still the case)
Hate incidents and hate crimes. Two very different things.
One doesn't get you arrested, one does.
Wee Mrs Miggins who's 80 and says 'Im off to the Paki's' as in, the corner shop, if reported by a member of the public for that, is a hate incident. She isn't motivated by hate or prejudice of a certain race, she's just using cultural terminology from her youth. No crime recorded.
Jock McNed who's an arse who shouts 'Paki!' at an Asian fellow walking down the street is a hate crime, because he's motivated by hatred or prejudice, etc, etc. He gets the jail.
People can report what they perceive as a hate crime but it doesn't mean anything will happen.
We as cops still get to say what is and what isn't a hate crime - we just need to be able to justify it if we say it isn't.
So often, we'll tell the Complainer to do one as it's not a hate crime. I have some great examples I wish I could share - people complain about anything.
If we can't get out of recording it as a crime, and if the suspect or accused genuinely is innocent but the law has backed them in to a corner, we'll write on the case under Remarks which only the PF and Sheriff get to see that this is bollocks.
PF will red pen and bin at that point.
If the PF is a **** and runs with it, they'll find a very unco-operative cop in the box and the Defense will have a great time. Often a word with the PF before hand will get it binned last minute. Or the classic 'I can no longer ID the accused due to passage of time'.
Summary: the hate law is a bit mental, bit most of us try to make sure it's used properly.
Unless I really want to jail you, in which case, did you just call me a gay black proddy bastard?
What about class hate, if some SJW calls me ' a middle class rich murder of single parent children ' or just as ex-service ' A child killer' as in 'hey hey LBJ how many kids have you killed to-day' do I have a case to go to my County Finest and get him/her or what ever said individual self identifies as lifted?
View attachment 326759
Been hitting my head with a hammer for an hour but I still can't get my brain to absorb this mental statement . Even Stalins legal team would tell him not to take the piss if he came up with this .
And it is exactly this fact which renders these knife “amnesties” ridiculous and- forgive the pun- pointless. They might as well have a sharpened stick amnesty, or an icicle amnesty- because every fool knows that an icicle is the choice weapon for the perfect undetectable murder.
So, if my reading of the OP correct, if Mr A Bigot of Stupid on Trent sees someone in a niqab entering a bank, and they take offense and ring three nines to report a potential terrorist attack, then the fact that the person reporting the non crime found it offensive makes it an offence?
Is the hate crime legislation really news to people? How many times have you seen (and actually understood) that it's no longer the intent of what was said or done, it's how it is interpreted by ANY witness that may land you in trouble?
This has been true for years now. Why is anyone surprised?
That's true, and not just in a legal sense; the number of times my "robust" sense of humour has gotten me into trouble at work because someone not involved in the banter between me and a colleague has taken offence, even though they've said far worse with their friends.
It is exceedingly likely the the title of this thread, 'Police finally go full loony tunes' is offensive to policepersons everywhere. It implies tardiness on their part in going loony tunes at the same time as being highly discriminatory and thus hatefully offensive to all loonies, non loonies and tunes identifying as loony, non loony or anywhere in between.
May I suggest that you surrender yourself to your nearest police station with a printed copy of your thread and make a full confession. You won't need legal representation but @petetheplane will recommend somebody if you need someone to hold your hand.
Don't like it write to your MP demanding they raise taxes. Police are doing less because there's less of us and ever more demands on our time to take up the funding related failings of the NHS, social services and crap parents.