Police are still recording hundreds of petty rows as ‘hate incidents’ despite ministers telling them to tackle serious crime instead.
Forces nationwide are logging details of trivial arguments between neighbours, drunken rants and online spats if callers say they have been offended.
In one case now kept on file as a race-related Non Crime Hate Incident (NCHI), a pubgoer accused Welsh bar staff of refusing to serve him because he was English – but they said he was just drunk.
Elsewhere, despite detection rates for traditional crimes plummeting, forces have recorded hate incidents where business owners have objected to negative online reviews and parents have complained schoolchildren were making fun of a classmate on TikTok.
It comes despite the Home Office telling police last year they should stop recording all reports of supposed hate and must ignore those where no intentional hostility or prejudice can be proven.
Forces nationwide are logging details of trivial arguments between neighbours, drunken rants and online spats if callers say they have been offended (stock image)
A body-worn camera similar to those used by police. The Home Office told police last year they should stop recording all reports of supposed hate and must ignore those where no intentional hostility or prejudice can be proven (stock image)
Last night former home secretary Suella Braverman, who brought in the restrictions on hate incidents that forces are flouting, told the Mail: ‘The police seem to have plenty of time to record these often trivial incidents and yet anti-social behaviour, drugs and shoplifting is going unresolved.
‘As home secretary I changed the guidance to raise the bar for when data should be recorded. It seems the police are still intent on subverting these rules. They are letting the public down. The police need to do better.’
NCHIs – which do not count as crimes but can show up in job applicants’ vetting checks – were created in the wake of Stephen Lawrence’s murder as a way for police to monitor levels of racism across the country.
Forces were later accused of using them to punish people for ‘thought crime’ however, and the Government sought to restrict their use after a landmark free speech High Court case, won by former police officer Harry Miller who was investigated after tweeting about transgender rights.
In a statutory code of practice published by the Home Office last June, police were told: ‘The perception of hostility or prejudice by a complainant or any other person alone is not enough, in and of itself, to warrant an NCHI record being made.’
Incidents deemed irrational, malicious or trivial should be ignored while the personal details of alleged offenders can be kept on file only if there is a real risk of their behaviour escalating into crime.
But now civil liberties group Big Brother Watch has obtained figures from 32 of the 46 police forces in England and Wales showing they recorded 6,489 NCHI between June and November last year. Call logs show that although some of the incidents covered racist or homophobic abuse, many others did not meet the criteria set out by the Home Office.
Former home secretary Suella Braverman, who brought in the restrictions on hate incidents that forces are flouting, told the Mail: ‘The police seem to have plenty of time to record these often trivial incidents and yet anti-social behaviour, drugs and shoplifting is going unresolved’
Mr Miller, who set up the Fair Cop group to campaign against ‘police attempts to criminalise people for expressing opinions’, said: ‘Hate is an everyday emotion, like love or envy, and the police have no business recording except where it is attached to a crime or where it signifies that a crime is about to happen.
‘Being offensive or expressing uncomfortable opinion is not a police matter.’
Jake Hurfurt, Big Brother Watch’s head of research and investigations, said: ‘It is worrying that police forces across the country are still recording social media comments and schoolyard squabbles on law enforcement systems.
‘Police should record NCHIs only when there is strong evidence of hate and they must seek to protect rather than limit freedom of speech. Resources should be focused on the world of crime, rather than monitoring non-criminal transgressions.’
Tory MP Rachel Maclean, who had a hate incident recorded against her last year for sharing an online post describing a trans woman as a man in a wig, said: ‘In my view it’s time to stop the recording of NCHIs altogether; after all, there is no evidence they lead to keeping anyone safer.’
Tory MP Rachel Maclean (pictured), who had a hate incident recorded against her last year for sharing an online post describing a trans woman as a man in a wig, said: ‘In my view it’s time to stop the recording of NCHIs altogether; after all, there is no evidence they lead to keeping anyone safer’
North Wales Police recorded 77 NCHI including a parent complaining her son’s classmates had called him names on TikTok. In another, flagged as ‘racial’, a complainant said staff refused to serve him at a pub in Bala because he was English, but they said it was because he was drunk.
Greg George, head of diversity for North Wales Police, said: ‘North Wales Police do comply with the Home Office Guidance. Perception of hostility or prejudice can be subjective and linked to various factors.’
Norfolk Constabulary recorded 57 NCHI including one in which a business owner said ‘he is receiving bad reviews on social media and local websites’ because of ‘him being a foreigner’. A force spokesman said it had reduced the number of NCHIs by 50 per cent.
Lancashire Constabulary, which logged 159 NCHIs, recorded one where someone had found a social media post about the conflict in Israel ‘disturbing’. The force said it had introduced guidance for staff ‘to ensure that incidents are recorded accurately’.
The Home Office said: ‘The statutory code of practice on the recording of non-crime hate incidents stipulates they should only be recorded when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate to do so. Personal data may only be recorded if there is a real risk of significant harm or a future criminal offence.’
