The fundamental problem with the Hate Crimes Guidance is the very wide and woolly definition of ‘hate’.
It includes ‘resentment’ and ‘unfriendliness’.
These emotions are normal. They don’t escalate into crime. They are nothing to do with the police.
It includes ‘resentment’ and ‘unfriendliness’.
These emotions are normal. They don’t escalate into crime. They are nothing to do with the police.
https://twitter.com/tim_fargo/status/1320626790730182656
We will continue to express our contempt for those individuals and organisations who deny science, reality and the law.
Record us on whatever data base you wish.
Record us on whatever data base you wish.
Of course people need to be protected against harm. There are already many laws in existence to protect against assault or harassment. Or theft! 
Why does everything have to be reframed as ‘hate’? The inevitable conclusion is because it’s easier. Hate incidents can simply be recorded without investigation or even cursory challenge. Stats go up, no need to even leave your desk.
Another serious problem is the growth of ‘protected characteristics’ that defy any definition.
Ask the next police officer you meet to define ‘gender identity’ for you.
Let’s collect the 100s of different responses you will get.
Ask the next police officer you meet to define ‘gender identity’ for you.
Let’s collect the 100s of different responses you will get.
Mr Justice Knowles recognised this problem - calling for the police to exercise ‘common sense’ and ‘proportionality’ when dealing with ‘hate crime’.
Did they listen? The new Hate Crimes Guidance suggests they didn’t.
We will be commenting in more detail soon.
Did they listen? The new Hate Crimes Guidance suggests they didn’t.
We will be commenting in more detail soon.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
