NCHI and the Telegraph’s Alison Pearson
Discussion
I couldn’t spot a thread on this but it seems to be exercising both the Telegraph and the Free Speech Union and various conservatives in ever increasing volume over the last few days.
Long story short; Pearson was visited by 2 policemen on Sunday to explain she was requested to attend an interview regarding a Non Crime Hate Incident and needed to provide contact details, apparently related to a tweet she made 12 months ago.
They couldn’t provide details of the incident nor the details of the complainant. Eventually she ponied up her email address and they were on their way.
Pearson then wrote a rather emotional article about it and how it despoiled Remembrance Sunday.
https://freespeechunion.org/telegraph-journalist-a...
Subsequently it seems to have all kicked off a bit with questions in parliament and lawyers wading in:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/14/alliso...
It’s turned out that there are now three police forces involved in the process (The Met, Essex and Suffolk if I recall).
Much of the right wing side of the discussion has majored on the 250,000 odd NCHIs lodged since their inception and the falling rates regarding more traditional forms of crime such as Burglery, theft and shoplifting.
I suspect this may run and run.
Long story short; Pearson was visited by 2 policemen on Sunday to explain she was requested to attend an interview regarding a Non Crime Hate Incident and needed to provide contact details, apparently related to a tweet she made 12 months ago.
They couldn’t provide details of the incident nor the details of the complainant. Eventually she ponied up her email address and they were on their way.
Pearson then wrote a rather emotional article about it and how it despoiled Remembrance Sunday.
https://freespeechunion.org/telegraph-journalist-a...
Subsequently it seems to have all kicked off a bit with questions in parliament and lawyers wading in:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/14/alliso...
It’s turned out that there are now three police forces involved in the process (The Met, Essex and Suffolk if I recall).
Much of the right wing side of the discussion has majored on the 250,000 odd NCHIs lodged since their inception and the falling rates regarding more traditional forms of crime such as Burglery, theft and shoplifting.
I suspect this may run and run.
Edited by Ridgemont on Thursday 14th November 21:11
I suppose we are fortunate that crime is at an all time low and crimes like anti social behaviour, shoplifting and housebreaking/burglary aren’t taking up resources that can now be deployed in the fight against non-crime hate incidents……
This country is a joke and it’s going to get a lot worse before (if) it gets better….
This country is a joke and it’s going to get a lot worse before (if) it gets better….
wc98 said:
I've just replied to a link to it on the Labour thread. It's utterly outrageous and way overstepping the mark.
The overstepping has been going on for some time.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
There is IMO a real problem here: as Toby Young noted a couple of days ago there is very real chilling effect where non crime incidents are used to chaperone what is acceptable to be said publicly (or even privately as Count Dankula found out).
There is no proper oversight with overeager police forces seemingly focussing on a stringent approach to this stuff.
.
Ridgemont said:
It’s turned out that there are now three police forces involved in the process (The Met, Essex and Suffolk if I recall).
This seems reasonable as I think the Met only do Twitter and tractor policing now. Burglaries, theft and other neighbourhood crimes aren't in their remit anymore as far as anyone can tell from the stats.sugerbear said:
Why do think people think posting something (offensive) on social media vs sticking a large poster up in their town are somehow different and the former is “nothing” where as the latter is?
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
Being offensive is not an offence. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
sugerbear said:
Why do think people think posting something (offensive) on social media vs sticking a large poster up in their town are somehow different and the former is “nothing” where as the latter is?
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
If it isn't a crime then the police shouldn't be investigating it when they have actual crimes (e.g. burglaries) to solve and apparently not many resources.Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
sugerbear said:
Why do think people think posting something (offensive) on social media vs sticking a large poster up in their town are somehow different and the former is “nothing” where as the latter is?
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
You need to get out into the real World.Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
Cold said:
sugerbear said:
Why do think people think posting something (offensive) on social media vs sticking a large poster up in their town are somehow different and the former is “nothing” where as the latter is?
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
Being offensive is not an offence. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
I will have to look up the definition but what is a Non Crime Hate Incident? If it is not a crime, then why do the police investigate it and what is the punishment for this non crime?
It is all getting a bit Orwellian and before we go spouting that tibia all the fault of Labour, was it not the Tory party that was in power for the last 14 years and brought it in?
andyA700 said:
Do you have any proof of that? What is their purpose, what should they be doing?
Huge amounts of time concerned with traffic, missing people, sudden death, mental health, firearms, licensing, public events, public order, sport, the list goes on...The populace need to decide what they want the police to deal with, and, importantly, how much they are prepared to pay. It's about time sensible conversations were had on this subject.
Boringvolvodriver said:
Exactly this.
I will have to look up the definition but what is a Non Crime Hate Incident? If it is not a crime, then why do the police investigate it and what is the punishment for this non crime?
It is all getting a bit Orwellian and before we go spouting that tibia all the fault of Labour, was it not the Tory party that was in power for the last 14 years and brought it in?
AIUI, the College of Policing brought it in. You just make an accusation and you don't need evidence, the police just trust you was the idea. The Conservatives put it in law after a court case where it was ruled to be a massive overreach without a statuatory footing. Then this summer Yvette Cooper was giving it large about the Tories having downgraded the use of these and they were going to tell the Police to use them more.I will have to look up the definition but what is a Non Crime Hate Incident? If it is not a crime, then why do the police investigate it and what is the punishment for this non crime?
It is all getting a bit Orwellian and before we go spouting that tibia all the fault of Labour, was it not the Tory party that was in power for the last 14 years and brought it in?
So they're in the frame, but this is very much a tolerated police behaviour now fuelled by Labour. And it appears Starmer is content with it.
XCP said:
andyA700 said:
Do you have any proof of that? What is their purpose, what should they be doing?
Huge amounts of time concerned with traffic, missing people, sudden death, mental health, firearms, licensing, public events, public order, sport, the list goes on...The populace need to decide what they want the police to deal with, and, importantly, how much they are prepared to pay. It's about time sensible conversations were had on this subject.
There needs to be some form of public enquiry. No political party has the bottle to oversee reform of the police. PACE was good. Might have been great if it had been fully funded, but it reformed one part of the police functions. But if the public knew what the police did other than where a warrant card was required, there would be a great deal of fuss. The only reason Pearson's problem has been highlighted is because it's someone with a voice.
I thought that with most offending people are quite keen on the Police getting involved early and nipping it in the bud aren't they?
Perhaps having a quiet word with the kid on an e-bike who hasn't committed a burglary yet but who wasn't simply taking a shortcut home across someone's garden etc.
Isn't the idea behind this a similar principle about trying to nip behaviour in the bud before it potentially does turn into something worse?
Perhaps having a quiet word with the kid on an e-bike who hasn't committed a burglary yet but who wasn't simply taking a shortcut home across someone's garden etc.
Isn't the idea behind this a similar principle about trying to nip behaviour in the bud before it potentially does turn into something worse?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff