No doubt hate crime on the rise.

[denso13]

Both.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Loading…

www.met.police.uk

Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

The question is why do you have a policy to classify something as a hate crime when there is no evidence to suggest it is.

Particularly noting the process the cps will apply.

The obvious outcome will be to record an increase in hate crimes that includes crimes that are not hate crimes.

That document is guidelines for investigating Suspected Hate Crimes. It is not guidelines for classifying crimes as Hate Crimes.

It appears to be the victim that determines crimes as potential Hate Crimes.

 

[motorbiking]

They are claiming to be following the below definition:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

Note the "any other person".

But importantly for a hate crime to be prosecuted as such the requirement is:

the offender has either:

Demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity Or been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

Again.. as per my opening post.. You are going to record a lot of hate crimes, if you treat all crimes as hate crimes, even when there is no evidence to support it. The policy needs to have some kind of rationality appleid to the perception of the victim or other person.

Otherwise, we will be seeing someone arguing the police should do better in gathering evidence of hate crime when we have XX number of hate crimes reported and only YY ( a lower number) prosecuted as such. Not to mention victims arguing it's a hate crime, because they know this is an aggravating factor.

Its bonkers.

 

[IT Minion]

The reason for the guidance being deliberately broad for hate crime recording by the police is the historic failure to capture them. This is known and accepted by the police.

Once they've been flagged as a potential hate crime they can be assessed in more depth and many will not meet the criminal threshold. But unless they are flagged initially then it won't be investigated or handled appropriately.

This is a design feature, not a flaw.

 

[motorbiking]

Or they could investigate the crime with an open mind and follow the evidence.. class it as hate crime when the evidence leads in that direction.

 

[IT Minion]

Or they could investigate the crime with an open mind and follow the evidence.. clarify it as hate crime when the evidence leads in that direction.

How well did that work before the latest guidance was released? I'll give you a hint, badly.

 

[denso13]

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

Yes, the definition of a hate crime. So what?

You are going to record a lot of hate crimes, if you treat all crimes as hate crimes

You keep saying this but have still shown nothing to say that all crimes should be reported as hate crimes.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

They are claiming to be following the below definition:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

Note the "any other person".

So the victim classifies it as a hate crime. The police follow the guidelines for monitoring and investigation.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes, the definition of a hate crime. So what?

You keep saying this but have still shown nothing to say that all crimes should be reported as hate crimes.

I haven't said that "all crimes should be reported as hate crimes." I've said "class it as hate crime when the evidence leads in that direction."

Any other person, is literally any other person. They need present no evidence to support their perception. its bonkers.

 

[motorbiking]

How well did that work before the latest guidance was released? I'll give you a hint, badly.

So get them classing things as hate crimes when they aren't. How does that help anyone?

 

[denso13]

So get them classing things as hate crimes when they aren't.

No one is doing that. No matter how many times you say it.

 

[motorbiking]

There is no evidence its a hate crime, but its been classified as a hate crime.

"The Met Police said the evidence gathered so far does not suggest there was a homophobic motive, but the case has been classified as a hate crime"

Are you really so confused?

 

[denso13]

Are you really so confused?

Not at all.

There is no evidence its a hate crime, but its been classified as a hate crime.

Genuinely interested to read what the guidelines are for this, I've looked but can't find anything to support the claim.

 

[JonathanM]

The idea behind these guidelines seems to be to give high priority to the investigation of potential hate crimes. That's hardly necessary in a case like this!

 

[denso13]

"The Met Police said the evidence gathered so far does not suggest there was a homophobic motive, but the case has been classified as a hate crime"

Yes, and "It said this would be reviewed as any further evidence of a specific motive becomes available.".

So might not even make the statistics as a hate crime. It would be good to see the actual relevant guidance.