Police logged 13,000 NCHIs last year, yet can’t say if even one helped prevent a crime
DIDI RANKOVIC
NCHIs have been the source of much controversy over the last years, both from the standpoint of intimidating and suppressing lawful speech and as a significant diversion of police time and resources away from real crime and toward by-and-large trivial issues.
Though they have been getting logged in their thousands – 13,000 only last year, which translates to 30,000 hours of police time – NCHIs started getting the attention of mainstream media with some high-profile cases.
More: Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter
Announcing the amendment, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp this week writes in The Telegraph that the UK is “supposed to be the home of free speech – and a country where the police chase criminals, not law-abiding members of the public.”
And once the amendment is in parliament, Philp seems sure the vote would “smoke out” those MPs from the ruling Labour who prefer to control speech (under the guise of combating hate speech), rather than protect freedom of expression.
Conservatives appear to be – now – making free speech a focal point of their political strategy, as party leader Kemi Badenoch also decided not to mince words when commenting on NCHIs, referring to them as “wasted police time chasing ideology and grievance instead of justice.”
The Free Speech Union (FSU) public interest group welcomed Philp’s announcement, and provided a timeline of the introduction and strengthening of the NCHI phenomenon, singling out 2014 when the College of Policing came out with the Hate Crime Operational Guidance, “which formalized the idea that NCHIs would be recorded (and retained) against individuals’ names.”
And that guidance provided a fairly uniquely broad and vague “definition” of what NCHIs are:
“Any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any bystanders to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a protected characteristic: race or perceived race, religion or perceived religion (…)”
It’s worth quoting more perplexing statements from the guidance: “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.”
Another thing that is apparently “not required” is for the police to know what, if any help in fighting hate crime some 250,000 NCHIs recorded since 2014 have had.
As The Telegraph wrote earlier this week, “most (police) forces have admitted they carry out no analysis of the data and so have little idea as to their effectiveness in detecting and preventing hate crime.”
Even if the Conservatives’ amendment is adopted, the UK Crime and Policing Bill is burdened by other major issues, such as allowing greater access to citizens’ “driving license information” to all police forces in the UK – and laying the foundations for the police using 50 million+ driving license photos for facial recognition searches.
This article (UK Conservatives Target “Non-Crime Hate Incidents” in Crime Bill Amendment as Police Admit No Evidence of Impact on Crime) was created and published by Reclaim the Net and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Didi Rankovic
Featured image: alamy.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply