Thought police slapped down.

@Provost police don’t decide ...it’s a home office directive.
It still amounts to lazy policing, albeit directed from above. They can properly direct the police to record whatever they like. What they should never do is direct the police to apply something which is akin in some ways to a criminal conviction.

Even a criminal caution has to be accepted and acknowledged by the perpetrator or else the matter has to be heard at court. Why? Because a caution has consequences on the person accused and the option must be there to have the matter tested in court.
 
Police are required by law to record any hate incident or crime. There are 5 mandatory protected characteristics - religion,disability,gender...etc. Forces can also include others such as...being a goth for example. If ANY person, be it the so called victim, or an onlooker deems a hate crime/incident to have occurred and report it, police are required by home office counting rules to record it. If Jarrod called the police and said “a bloke in town barged past me today...I think he did it because I’m gay”...police have no option but to record as either hate crime or incident. If an onlooker saw a bloke barge past an Asian on an escalator during rush hour, and reported he thought he was barged past because he was Asian...it has to be recorded.
This goes some way to explaining why the crime statistics, bbc type “hate crime has increased 20% since...” often appear to make out the UK is a stormfront enclave.

@Provost police don’t decide ...it’s a home office directive.
This. Which also ought to be right at the top of Priti Patel and Suella Bravermans agendas. Hurt feelings are not the result of a crime, hate or otherwise.
 
I committed 34 non crimes so far today and I've just let the cat out so make that 35.
How do you know it's a cat, it might self identify as a dog?
 
It still amounts to lazy policing, albeit directed from above. They can properly direct the police to record whatever they like. What they should never do is direct the police to apply something which is akin in some ways to a criminal conviction.

Even a criminal caution has to be accepted and acknowledged by the perpetrator or else the matter has to be heard at court. Why? Because a caution has consequences on the person accused and the option must be there to have the matter tested in court.
There are also a lot of people who fall under the “protected characteristics” who misunderstand the law. Many assume ANY offence committed against them constitutes a hate crime automatically- and report it as such. ...Still has to be recorded as such.
 
It still amounts to lazy policing, albeit directed from above. They can properly direct the police to record whatever they like. What they should never do is direct the police to apply something which is akin in some ways to a criminal conviction.

Even a criminal caution has to be accepted and acknowledged by the perpetrator or else the matter has to be heard at court. Why? Because a caution has consequences on the person accused and the option must be there to have the matter tested in court.
Official application of the Atitude Test?

"OK you win, you haven't done anything wrong, so I am going to put you on the list, so you lose"

Just spiteful really
1581692872063.png
 
You wouldn't steal a car.

You wouldn't break into a house.

You wouldn't mug an old person.

Transphobia is a crime. We're onto you.
 
There are also a lot of people who fall under the “protected characteristics” who misunderstand the law. Many assume ANY offence committed against them constitutes a hate crime automatically- and report it as such. ...Still has to be recorded as such.
I understand that. The main things that worry me are that it is recorded as a hate incident and will, presumably, remain as a hate incident even after it is has been investigated. Also, the report can be made at the behest of anybody, the result will never be tested in court (unless it becomes a hate crime) and yet there will be consequences for a named person.

As far as I am aware, there are no provision for similar consequences to be made for a person found to be making a mistaken, unjustified or a malicious allegation.
 
Fair play to the "accused" for
(a) getting it all on camera
(b) keeping his cool and giving the two uniforms more than enough rope to show just far the Police has become a service and not a force.
 
This. The whole "you haven't committed a crime but we'd like to have a chat with you about your views" is ridiculous
In which case I'd tell the Police to go do one. If no crime has been committed then I neither have to listen to them nor talk to them.
 

TamH70

MIA
Does this mean we're safe to say we self identify as a helicopter without plod knocking at the door?
Well, nope. The Thought Police will come at you, just like they did when bleating fucknuggets forced the removal from the internet of a story by someone that identified as an attack helicopter.


Transphobic? Yeah, right. Complete ******* idiocy of the highest order to force its removal? Absofuckinglutely.
 
Yeah, like I'll retreat back to my closet then. **** off.

The judge ruled that the guidelines used were lawful, just wrongly applied, so bad news for the internet heroes who think it's open season for Trans hunting.
No one sane thinks it's open season. But it represents a step back from the 'diversity above all else' theme the extremists have been pushing.

An acknowledgement that you don't have to like what someone says, but it isn't a crime to say it.
 

ACAB

LE
I understand that. The main things that worry me are that it is recorded as a hate incident and will, presumably, remain as a hate incident even after it is has been investigated. Also, the report can be made at the behest of anybody, the result will never be tested in court (unless it becomes a hate crime) and yet there will be consequences for a named person.

As far as I am aware, there are no provision for similar consequences to be made for a person found to be making a mistaken, unjustified or a malicious allegation.
people can have, and do get “alleges” markers put against them for vexatious accusations.
 

Latest Threads

Top