No doubt hate crime on the rise.

[motorbiking]

its a fact either way.

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

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.

It's the same for all crimes, aggravating (and mitigating) circumstances are taken into account.

 

[noseall]

The whole idea is that the perpetrators of hate crime get tougher sentences as a direct result of their hateful motivation.

Have you just made that up?

At what stage does the hate factor come into play? When they are charged? During the trial? Or when they are sentenced?

 

[IT Minion]

Either the policy is flawed or the understanding is flawed.

Or your understanding is flawed.

Which it is. If it turns out their sexual orientation isn't a factor then it will be unflagged and removed from the stats. Or to be more accurate it'll be recorded as a crime that was flagged and subsequently removed.

Yes, the data scientists have got their teeth into the crime stats.

 

[IT Minion]

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

Responding to hate | College of Policing

This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

www.college.police.uk

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.

Yes it does. Copying the non-crime hate entry:

Any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on:

No 'evidence' needed, only suspicion or perception by anyone needed to cross that threshold.

This is by design. This is the policy working as designed. There are good reasons why it was designed to operate this way.

But perhaps it is all just the woke Illuminati trying to boost the number of gate crimes investigated but ruled non-hate crimes in order to.... do.... something...?

 

[IT Minion]

Is this just yet another example of someone reading a daily mail headline and assuming that the people who designed these processes is thicker than they are without checking in any depth?

 

[motorbiking]

Have you just made that up?

At what stage does the hate factor come into play? When they are charged? During the trial? Or when they are sentenced?

No.

Once the motive is proved the cps apply to have the aggravating factor taken into account.

It’s well documented in the links I already provided.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes it does. Copying the non-crime hate entry:


No 'evidence' needed, only suspicion or perception by anyone needed to cross that threshold.

This is by design. This is the policy working as designed. There are good reasons why it was designed to operate this way.

But perhaps it is all just the woke Illuminati trying to boost the number of gate crimes investigated but ruled non-hate crimes in order to.... do.... something...?

Obviously murder is not a non-crime. But do carry on with your analysis.

Have you got to the bit where it says…

It would not be appropriate to record a crime or incident as a hate crime or incident if it was based on the perception of a person or group who had no knowledge of the victim, crime/incident or the area. Or where the reporting person may be responding to media or internet stories or who are reporting for political or other similar motive.

Sorry to pee on your parade.

 

[motorbiking]

Is this just yet another example of someone reading a daily mail headline and assuming that the people who designed these processes is thicker than they are without checking in any depth?

No daily mail readers were harmed. It’s in the met police bulletin. Conveniently ignored by those who want to pretend they are dumb or not.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If the people killed were, or were likely, gay, what heading would you put it under until the final outcome and final recording of the crime ?

 

[motorbiking]

A murder investigation.

If the people killed were, or were likely, white what heading would you put it under until the final outcome and final recording of the crime ?

You can interchange white for brown, yellow, disabled, women, men, Christian, Muslim or whatever protected characteristics you want.

Every single person has protected characteristics, so all crimes are hate crimes?

Bonkers obviously.

 

[JonathanM]

No 'evidence' needed, only suspicion or perception by anyone needed to cross that threshold.

Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’

I don't think suspicion is enough. It has to be at least perception. The question, in this case, is perception by who? Who was the person who perceived that this was a hate crime. According to the guidelines, it cannot be enough that the police simply suspect that it might be a hate crime.

 

[motorbiking]

Correct and not just some random. It has to be someone with a credible reason and knowledge of the circumstances.

 

[IT Minion]

Obviously murder is not a non-crime. But do carry on with your analysis.

Have you got to the bit where it says…

It would not be appropriate to record a crime or incident as a hate crime or incident if it was based on the perception of a person or group who had no knowledge of the victim, crime/incident or the area. Or where the reporting person may be responding to media or internet stories or who are reporting for political or other similar motive.

Sorry to pee on your parade.

... and do you have any reason to believe this wasn't followed? No, then what the **** is your point? Evidence isn't needed.

And you, as a person responding to media reports on the internet and with no knowledge of the victims, crime or area are in an odd place to be second guessing the police and quoting that particular section as supporting 'evidence'.

 

[IT Minion]

I don't think suspicion is enough. It has to be at least perception. The question, in this case, is perception by who? Who was the person who perceived that this was a hate crime. According to the guidelines, it cannot be enough that the police simply suspect that it might be a hate crime.

Think what you're writing for a second, the police aren't allowed to consider that a crime might be a hate crime? Seriously?

If they suspect it's a possible hate crime they must investigate that and they must flag it in the system as soon as they think it is a possibility. This is absolutely clear.

If it is found that there's no evidence for a hate crime once they've looked into it then that too is recorded. But doing so makes MBK sad for some unknown reason.