The truth about post brexit epidemic myth of hate crime

Interesting article...


http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/the-real-hate-crime-scandal/


Not got time to copy and paste it here.

TL/DR: Britain seems in one person's view to be less racist than it was 30 years ago, so it's the most tolerant country in the world and Britons need not pay any attention to their own police forces reporting that hate crime is escalating.

Ben Reilly wrote:TL/DR: Britain seems in one person's view to be less racist than it was 30 years ago, so it's the most tolerant country in the world and Britons need not pay any attention to their own police forces reporting that hate crime is escalating.

Who has claimed it is the most tolerant country in the world?
It may well have been if not for the fact we have allowed in people who who views not checked that are politically or religiously hateful.
Do you not agree?
This country is still very tolerant, but the most tolerant are places like Norway and New Zealand and would never argue against that

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:TL/DR: Britain seems in one person's view to be less racist than it was 30 years ago, so it's the most tolerant country in the world and Britons need not pay any attention to their own police forces reporting that hate crime is escalating.

Who has claimed it is the most tolerant country in the world?

Um ... the author of the damn article?

The author of the damn article wrote:It’s not vainglorious to say that Britain is the most tolerant country in Europe, perhaps the world.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Who has claimed it is the most tolerant country in the world?

Um ... the author of the damn article?

The author of the damn article wrote:It’s not vainglorious to say that Britain is the most tolerant country in Europe, perhaps the world.

Fair enough but he is wrong

What is relevant is that hate crimes against certain groups are increasing and who is to blame?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t17361-anti-semitic-hate-crime-spikes-in-2016-as-557-cases-reported-from-january-to-june?highlight=hate

Now racial hate crime is still the worst, but I am very concerned at the levels of hate crime against Jews,   based on hate of israel, which is evident and homosexuals, which is based on far right and religion and even worse racial hate crimes, Hate of Muslims, which is far right,

I would also say those claiming hate crimes have not happened off brexit, are lying, as they certainly have, but is it being blown out of all proportons compared to the dailly hate crime that goes on yearly?

In the article it tells of some alleged incidents that have been proven to be totally false... and it also tells of changes to how things are recorded...


Says any incident between people of different backgrounds is now automatically classed as hate crime... when most are nothing to do with it...


Read the article... I can't be arsed to copy all the bits cos tired... long day...

Tommy Monk wrote:In the article it tells of some alleged incidents that have been proven to be totally false... and it also tells of changes to how things are recorded...


Says any incident between people of different backgrounds is now automatically classed as hate crime... when most are nothing to do with it...


Read the article... I can't be arsed to copy all the bits cos tired... long day...

So even if some are false, then some are true are they not Tommy?

Do you know what is the worse part about this article Tommy?
Its like trying to deny islamic extremism and terrorism.
There is no doubt some people have committed hate crimes and it has certainly spiked off brexit, that is a fact. Some people are right bastards and have placed a dark side to the whole aspect of the democratic vote. Which is now being made worse by you doing exactly the same as those apoligists of islamic terrorism, by trying to claims some of these crimes are not hate crimes.
Stop being a poor apologist.
There is no doubt hatemongers have capitalized on brexit to commit hatred and you should be condemning that, not making excuses

Tommy Monk wrote:In the article it tells of some alleged incidents that have been proven to be totally false... and it also tells of changes to how things are recorded...


Says any incident between people of different backgrounds is now automatically classed as hate crime... when most are nothing to do with it...


Read the article... I can't be arsed to copy all the bits cos tired... long day...

Why....bit...tired? Have you been Photoshopping all day?

Didge wrote:Do you know what is the worse part about this article Tommy?
Its like trying to deny islamic extremism and terrorism.
There is no doubt some people have committed hate crimes and it has certainly spiked off brexit, that is a fact. Some people are right bastards and have placed a dark side to the whole aspect of the democratic vote. Which is now being made worse by you doing exactly the same as those apoligists of islamic terrorism, by trying to claims some of these crimes are not hate crimes.
Stop being a poor apologist.
There is no doubt hatemongers have capitalized on brexit to commit hatred and you should be condemning that, not making excuses

The article also says how many are accepted as true through a new Web site reporting page... that anyone can make any claim without any evidence at all...


Read the article...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:Do you know what is the worse part about this article Tommy?
Its like trying to deny islamic extremism and terrorism.
There is no doubt some people have committed hate crimes and it has certainly spiked off brexit, that is a fact. Some people are right bastards and have placed a dark side to the whole aspect of the democratic vote. Which is now being made worse by you doing exactly the same as those apoligists of islamic terrorism, by trying to claims some of these crimes are not hate crimes.
Stop being a poor apologist.
There is no doubt hatemongers have capitalized on brexit to commit hatred and you should be condemning that, not making excuses

The article also says how many are accepted as true through a new Web site reporting page... that anyone can make any claim without any evidence at all...


Read the article...

I already said i am not disputing some maybe false, what about those what are most definatelly off the bases of brexit.
Are you claiming none were?

It's hard to know what to believe. When hate crimes were being reported after Brexit, Greater Manchester Police made a statement (after a couple of weeks) reporting that hate crimes had not gone up....the next day they changed their minds and made a statement (on the same local BBC radio station) saying that hate crimes had increased by 50% since Brexit??

Seems someone was pulling strings, but who?

From the article...


The number of hate crimes recorded by the cops has grown year by year. Six years ago, there were 42,255; in 2014-15, there were 52,528.

But these figures need to be taken with a fistful of salt. There is something wrong with the way we report and measure hate crimes in this country. The numbers do not necessarily speak to any objective spread of hate in modern Britain. On the contrary, what the BBC calls an ‘epidemic’ is a product of the authorities redefining racism and prejudice to such an extent that almost any unpleasant encounter between people of different backgrounds can now be recorded as ‘hatred’.

Consider the Brexit aftermath. The police say that 3,192 reports of hate incidents were received in the last two weeks of June, and 3,001 in the first two weeks of July. Apparently that constitutes a rise of 48 per cent and 20 per cent respectively on last year’s levels of incidents. But can we engage in some scepticism here? Many of these incidents (the police can’t at the moment say how many) were reported through True Vision, a police-funded website that allows anyone anywhere to report something they either experienced or witnessed, anonymously if they like. No evidence is needed. Everything is instantly logged as a hate incident. This inevitably presents a warped view of reality.

Already, two infamous post–Brexit ‘incidents’ have been debunked. It was widely claimed, for instance, that an attack on a tapas bar in Lewisham, south London, was a hate crime; actually, police say it was a burglary. A photo of four boneheads in Newcastle holding a banner saying ‘Stop Immigration, Start Repatriation’ was widely shared as evidence of xenophobia. But Geordies have pointed out that those idiots have been holding up that banner every weekend for ages, long before Brexit.

Beyond the post-Brexit hysteria, it’s incredible how subjective the idea of ‘hate crime’ has become. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service first agreed a common definition of hate crime ten years ago and started measuring national hate-crime levels in 2008. A hate crime, the police say, is ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic’. They monitored ‘five strands’: crimes driven by prejudice based on race, religion/faith, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity.

The police’s ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ now stresses that the victim’s perception is the deciding factor in whether something is measured as a hate crime. No evidence is required. ‘Evidence of… hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident,’ the guidance says. ‘[The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor… the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.’ So you don’t need actual evidence to prove hate crime, just a feeling. The police are discouraged from asking for evidence. This is reflected in the policies of individual constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Procedure’ of the Surrey Police says ‘apparent lack of motivation as the cause of an incident is not relevant as it is the perception of the victim or any other person that counts’. No clear hateful motivation? Doesn’t matter. Record it as a hate crime anyway. Indeed, even when nothing hateful was said to the victim of a crime, still the police must record the incident as a hate crime if the victim perceives it to be so. The police guidance gives the example of a gay man being ‘sworn at and threatened’ by an assailant who said absolutely ‘nothing… about his sexual orientation’. If this gay man ‘perceives that he was targeted [because] he is openly gay’ then the police must ‘record this as a hate crime based on sexual orientation’. Think about this. If any gay man is shouted at in the street, by anyone, about anything, with no mention of sexuality, that can be recorded as an anti-gay hate crime. There’s no need for any proof whatsoever that anything anti-gay in sentiment was said or even intimated.

The unhinged subjectivity of the hate-crime definition becomes even clearer on the issue of what is called ‘secondary victimisation’. This is when a victim of an alleged hate crime feels that the police are not being sensitive enough and thus compound the ‘hate’ he or she has experienced. The police guidance says ‘secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens. It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way’. Again, this sanctification of perception over ‘what actually happens’ has trickled down into hate-crime policies of local constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Policy and Procedure’ of Greater Manchester Police says that if a hate-crime victim feels indifference from the police, this ‘victimises them a second time’ and ‘whether or not it is reasonable for them to perceive it that way is immaterial’. Truth, then, is ‘immaterial’.

In a world obsessed with evidence-based public policy, it is odd that a new crime category which explicitly eschews evidence in favour of emotion is subjected to such little scrutiny. And it gets worse: the prosecution of a hate crime doesn’t actually have to prove that hatred was the motivation. The CPS states: ‘The prosecution does not… need to prove hatred as the motivating factor behind an offence.’ The CPS says any crime that involves ‘ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, or dislike’ on the basis of a ‘personal characteristic’ could be a hate crime. So unfriendliness can now be criminal. Next time you read about a hate-crime epidemic, bear that in mind.

Burglaries and robberies are often recorded as hate crimes. According to the Home Office, of all the hate incidents in the Crime Survey for England and Wales, 8 per cent are burglaries. And 1 per cent is bicycle theft. A racially motivated bike theft? You might think stealing is just about stealing, but if the victim thinks his stuff was nicked because he’s foreign, gay or trans, then it is recorded as hate crime.

The ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ demands ‘increasing the reporting and recording of hate crime’. It specifies that success should not be measured by a reduction in hate-crime levels, perhaps because this will give people the impression that community life in Britain is getting better, and we can’t have that. ‘Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate,’ it says, as this won’t ‘motivate managers’ to ‘promote positive recording’ or ‘increase the opportunity for victims to report’. So ‘success’ has one meaning only: creating evidence to suggest the problem is getting worse. The police are incentivised to find hatred, because their goal isn’t to tackle crime so much as to create a public impression of mass hatred.

Why are our authorities so willing to push this deceptive agenda? Why is our country determined to see itself as bigoted? It’s because creating a panic about hate crime gives officials and others a sense of purpose and history. But the squalid search for, and exaggeration of, hatred is dangerous and, to use a word so popular on social media, divisive. It is a slur on the white working classes to claim that what they think and say — on immigration, Europe, life in general — is racist. Such a perception convinces minorities that they should live in fear. It spreads anxiety and silences discussion. It rips Britain apart.

According to one leftie online magazine, Britain now evokes ‘nightmares of 1930s Germany’. But this doesn’t square with the reality of our country today, and you shouldn’t believe it. The hate-crime epidemic is a self-sustaining myth — a libel against the nation.

From the article...


The number of hate crimes recorded by the cops has grown year by year. Six years ago, there were 42,255; in 2014-15, there were 52,528.


And what was the number for 2015-2016...?



An article by RT.com says this...

The total number of reported hate crimes has jumped by 20 percent over the past year, from 50,288 (for 2014/15) to 60,225 (for 2015/16)...

Again are you claiming Tommy no hate crimes happend because of Brexit?

Its very easy to see that hate crimes did happen, so why are you denying this?

"...
Consider the Brexit aftermath. The police say that 3,192 reports of hate incidents were received in the last two weeks of June, and 3,001 in the first two weeks of July. Apparently that constitutes a rise of 48 per cent and 20 per cent respectively on last year’s levels of incidents. But can we engage in some scepticism here? Many of these incidents (the police can’t at the moment say how many) were reported through True Vision, a police-funded website that allows anyone anywhere to report something they either experienced or witnessed, anonymously if they like. No evidence is needed. Everything is instantly logged as a hate incident. This inevitably presents a warped view of reality.

Already, two infamous post–Brexit ‘incidents’ have been debunked. It was widely claimed, for instance, that an attack on a tapas bar in Lewisham, south London, was a hate crime; actually, police say it was a burglary. A photo of four boneheads in Newcastle holding a banner saying ‘Stop Immigration, Start Repatriation’ was widely shared as evidence of xenophobia. But Geordies have pointed out that those idiots have been holding up that banner every weekend for ages, long before Brexit..."

Again are you claiming no hate crimes happened bcause of brexit tommy?

Yes or no?

When back tomorrow I expect an answer

Goodnight, as now that the lying regressive scot has legged it with his tail between his legs to drown his sorrows

The ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ demands ‘increasing the reporting and recording of hate crime’. It specifies that success should not be measured by a reduction in hate-crime levels, perhaps because this will give people the impression that community life in Britain is getting better, and we can’t have that. ‘Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate,’ it says, as this won’t ‘motivate managers’ to ‘promote positive recording’ or ‘increase the opportunity for victims to report’. So ‘success’ has one meaning only: creating evidence to suggest the problem is getting worse. The police are incentivised to find hatred, because their goal isn’t to tackle crime so much as to create a public impression of mass hatred.