No doubt hate crime on the rise.

[Mrs Ten Names]

We only know what they have said. Which suggests the application of whatever policy they are trying to apply is flawed. Either the policy is flawed or the understanding is flawed. Its obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, that if you categorise something as a hate crime because the victim has a specific protected characteristic, you end up with rubbish data, responding to problems that aren't there, diversion of resource to tackle non-existing problems etc etc.

If you apply the logic that its a hate crime, if the victim has a protected characteristic, then ALL crime is hate crime.

There are many issues of concern with your comments.
Firstly, recorded hate crime is not "on the rise".

Key results​

• in the year ending March 2023, there were 145,214 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales (excluding Devon and Cornwall), a 5% decrease compared with the previous year
• this was the first annual fall since the Home Office began collecting comparable data in the year ending March 2013

Secondly, not every crime is considered a hate crime because not all characteristics are considered.

An offence may also be motivated by hatred towards a characteristic (strand) that is not currently centrally monitored and therefore does not form part of the data collection presented in this statistical bulletin (age or gender, for example).

Thirdly, crimes are only classed as potential hate crimes to ensure the relevant investigation topics and guidance are followed.
It's far better to include the possibility of a crime as a hate crime than it is to exclude it, only to be embarrassed later when it is shown to be a hate crime.

It is also thought that growing awareness of hate crime was likely to have led to improved identification of such offences.

You should try reading your own links.

 

[denso13]

I stated that if you class every crime as a possible hate crime even though the evidence does not suggest it's a hate crime, you are going to report a lot of hate crime.

More waffle. You have no idea why this happens but have made up reasons in your own mind. Speculation and nonsense.

 

[JonathanM]

I think the police statement is quite confusing. They could have made it clearer, for example by saying something along the lines of "We have no evidence that this crime was motivated by hate but we are keeping an open mind and looking into all possible motives and that is one of the lines of enquiry we will be pursuing".

 

[denso13]

They could have made it clearer, for example by saying something along the lines of "We have no evidence that this crime was motivated by hate but we are keeping an open mind and looking into all possible motives and that is one of the lines of enquiry we will be pursuing".

Maybe that's what the guidance says, in essence. It would be interesting to know.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I think the police statement is quite confusing. They could have made it clearer, for example by saying something along the lines of "We have no evidence that this crime was motivated by hate but we are keeping an open mind and looking into all possible motives and that is one of the lines of enquiry we will be pursuing".

I thought that was fairly obvious from the limited info we have available.

 

[Brigadier]

suggests

..is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you, on this topic.

Better that you "shut up" and let everyone think that you know nothing, than to carry on posting and prove it beyond doubt

 

[motorbiking]

I think the police statement is quite confusing. They could have made it clearer, for example by saying something along the lines of "We have no evidence that this crime was motivated by hate but we are keeping an open mind and looking into all possible motives and that is one of the lines of enquiry we will be pursuing".

Indeed, at the very least the press officer should have thought. Hang on.. if we phrase it like that we will either look like a bunch or idiots or we will look like we have an agenda.

 

[motorbiking]

Maybe that's what the guidance says, in essence. It would be interesting to know.

Perhaps you would enjoy reading the guidance about the guidance..

https://www.college.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-protection/hate-crime/responding-hate

It very clearly states qualifying criteria, which does not support a crime being investigated as a hate crime where there is no evidence of a hate crime.

 

[denso13]

It very clearly states qualifying criteria, which does not support a crime being investigated as a hate crime where there is no evidence of a hate crime.

Precisely. So what "guidance" are the media claiming they are using?

 

[Brigadier]

Indeed, at the very least the press officer should have thought. Hang on.. if we phrase it like that we will either look like a bunch or idiots or we will look like we have an agenda.

Perhaps this mythical press officer is as slapdash with their choice of words as you are

 

[motorbiking]

perhaps you should ask for a refund.

 

[Vinty]

Don't understand this concept of 'hate crime'
Example, White man stabs white woman =serious crime.
White man stabs Black woman because of race= very serious crime because racial hate is involved.
Both are victims of serious crime, yet, one crime is considered more serious because hate is involved.
Why is that.

 

[denso13]

Both are victims of serious crime, yet, one crime is considered more serious because hate is involved.
Why is that.

I don't think anyone is saying one is more serious than the other.

It's just a category of crime that can inform future policy, amongst other things.

 

[motorbiking]

Wrong @denso13, it is exactly as Vinty described. Hate is an aggravating factor and the prosecution, if they can prove the motive, are obliged to seek the aggravating factor is applied when sentencing. The whole idea is that the perpetrators of hate crime get tougher sentences as a direct result of their hateful motivation.

Sentencing Act 2020

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to sentencing.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[denso13]

Wrong @denso13,

I disagree.