5 ms·

The UK has a thing called non-crime hate incidents (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incident

The UK has a thing called non-crime hate incidents (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice-on-the-recording-and-retention-of-personal-data-accessible https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-in...) where the police records alleged complaints about discrimination, even if they are not a crime (otherwise they would be hate crimes). This could be used to direct policing resources sensibly ("lots of incidents recorded at such-and-such a place, maybe we should patrol there a bit more") or to build a dystopian database, or to waste police time. There's certainly a push by some of the media to stop the police spending time on this and focus on solving crimes instead. Similarly, this regulation could be used to prosecute child abusers, or it could be used to suppress free speech, or it could mean that people start using properly secure messaging apps.

bratbag 2y ago
This is overblown. The police are responsible for deciding how to classify a report. Their decisions need to be audited to avoid corruption. Ergo they have to maintain a record of reports they decided were not hate crimes.
- zahllos 2y ago
  This is true but, non crime hate incidents can appear on enhanced DBS checks (criminal records): https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-crime-hate-incidents-how-they-can-affect-your-dbs-check/ https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-c... and https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/non-crime-hate-incidents https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-do... - but bizarrely not on security clearances at least according to the London link. I would hope that this along with any other disclosure where the police decided on no action would be treated appropriately and only disclosed/acted upon if the incident was really worrying. On the other hand, I can't help but feel if the incident is worrying enough would it not also meet the bar for a criminal incident? I'm not really comfortable with the naming and the lack of due process to be honest. On the other hand, being careful what you say on social media is a requisite in many careers as companies can and do perform private background checks.
- phero_cnstrcts 2y ago
  >Their decisions need to be audited to avoid corruption. And as we all know: corruption ends abruptly at the highest levels.
- pc86 2y ago
  How long should police hold on to reports that they don't do anything with? If I make a complaint to the police about you, should an unrelated interaction you have with the police 5 years later bring up that report? Do you have a right to be forgotten if you haven't been convicted of a crime? Do I have a right to be forgotten if I've filed a report (or reports) that the police determine is/are frivolous? I can think of plenty scenarios where these records should be destroyed permanently after some amount of time - namely, if the police decide not to refer to a prosecutor, or if the prosecutor decides not to press charges, or if the defendant is found not guilty.
protocolture 2y ago
>waste police time. I dont know if you intended it but "wasting police time" is a pretty good book on the subject of administrative detections.
- lmm 2y ago
  It's not. It's a bunch of nonconstructive old-man-yells-at-cloud complaints. While it identifies a somewhat deep problem with crime metrics (what should you do when a reported crime was a real incident, but not something that warrants actually bringing charges or otherwise following up - something where "a policeman had a word with the guy" is actually the right solution that all parties are happy with) it contributes nothing to solving that problem (and, as the follow-up more or less acknowledged if you read it carefully enough, in fact made it worse).
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Made it worse if you consider that the book prompted authorities to bury the problem further. They went from claiming administrative detections didnt exist, to admitting they exist, to obfuscating the system so they can claim administrative detections no longer exist. >it contributes nothing to solving that problem His solution was to remove administrative detections, so that beat cops dont: 1. Get rewarded for "detecting" 30 crimes, where the 30 crimes was 10 people being harmless in public 2. Spend all their time writing reports about their administrative detections instead of being a visible presence. "a policeman had a word with the guy" is I believe the authors wish. He seems to make a case for removing police powers to the point where they are little more than private citizens. I quite liked the old man yells at cloud format. But I didnt like his obsession with the yank sherrif.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > His solution was to remove administrative detections And replace them with what? There is no easy way to handle that scenario that doesn't create perverse incentives if you're managing police by statistics (and getting away from that is not something you simply do). If you treat them as permanently unsolved crimes, you'll turn them into pointless counterproductive arrests/charges. If you allow the police to just write them off without recording any details, they'll slip serious crimes through the same process. Frankly, administrative detections do "solve" the "crime" in every meaningful sense - the problem is treating "percentage of crimes solved" as a meaningful statistic in the first place, and shocked-pikachu-facing when you tell the police to solve a higher percentage of crimes and they respond by allocating more resources to crimes that are easier to solve.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bratbag 2y ago

This is overblown. The police are responsible for deciding how to classify a report. Their decisions need to be audited to avoid corruption. Ergo they have to maintain a record of reports they decided were not hate crimes.

zahllos 2y ago
This is true but, non crime hate incidents can appear on enhanced DBS checks (criminal records): https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-crime-hate-incidents-how-they-can-affect-your-dbs-check/ https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-c... and https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/non-crime-hate-incidents https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-do... - but bizarrely not on security clearances at least according to the London link. I would hope that this along with any other disclosure where the police decided on no action would be treated appropriately and only disclosed/acted upon if the incident was really worrying. On the other hand, I can't help but feel if the incident is worrying enough would it not also meet the bar for a criminal incident? I'm not really comfortable with the naming and the lack of due process to be honest. On the other hand, being careful what you say on social media is a requisite in many careers as companies can and do perform private background checks.
phero_cnstrcts 2y ago
>Their decisions need to be audited to avoid corruption. And as we all know: corruption ends abruptly at the highest levels.
pc86 2y ago
How long should police hold on to reports that they don't do anything with? If I make a complaint to the police about you, should an unrelated interaction you have with the police 5 years later bring up that report? Do you have a right to be forgotten if you haven't been convicted of a crime? Do I have a right to be forgotten if I've filed a report (or reports) that the police determine is/are frivolous? I can think of plenty scenarios where these records should be destroyed permanently after some amount of time - namely, if the police decide not to refer to a prosecutor, or if the prosecutor decides not to press charges, or if the defendant is found not guilty.

protocolture 2y ago

>waste police time. I dont know if you intended it but "wasting police time" is a pretty good book on the subject of administrative detections.

lmm 2y ago
It's not. It's a bunch of nonconstructive old-man-yells-at-cloud complaints. While it identifies a somewhat deep problem with crime metrics (what should you do when a reported crime was a real incident, but not something that warrants actually bringing charges or otherwise following up - something where "a policeman had a word with the guy" is actually the right solution that all parties are happy with) it contributes nothing to solving that problem (and, as the follow-up more or less acknowledged if you read it carefully enough, in fact made it worse).
- protocolture 2y ago
  Made it worse if you consider that the book prompted authorities to bury the problem further. They went from claiming administrative detections didnt exist, to admitting they exist, to obfuscating the system so they can claim administrative detections no longer exist. >it contributes nothing to solving that problem His solution was to remove administrative detections, so that beat cops dont: 1. Get rewarded for "detecting" 30 crimes, where the 30 crimes was 10 people being harmless in public 2. Spend all their time writing reports about their administrative detections instead of being a visible presence. "a policeman had a word with the guy" is I believe the authors wish. He seems to make a case for removing police powers to the point where they are little more than private citizens. I quite liked the old man yells at cloud format. But I didnt like his obsession with the yank sherrif.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > His solution was to remove administrative detections And replace them with what? There is no easy way to handle that scenario that doesn't create perverse incentives if you're managing police by statistics (and getting away from that is not something you simply do). If you treat them as permanently unsolved crimes, you'll turn them into pointless counterproductive arrests/charges. If you allow the police to just write them off without recording any details, they'll slip serious crimes through the same process. Frankly, administrative detections do "solve" the "crime" in every meaningful sense - the problem is treating "percentage of crimes solved" as a meaningful statistic in the first place, and shocked-pikachu-facing when you tell the police to solve a higher percentage of crimes and they respond by allocating more resources to crimes that are easier to solve.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]