11 ms·

That information is rather buried, isn't it? The average UK voter won't actually know how the law is being applied, beyond taking the BBC's word when it summari

That information is rather buried, isn't it? The average UK voter won't actually know how the law is being applied, beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something, unless they, what, file a FOI request for every action ID#?

defrost 2y ago
Is it? Many countries only publicly release coarse totals, eg: in the UK the 12,000 annual police actions specific to this law are bundled in with ~465,000 other public order offences publicly released and totalled in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/policeforceareadatatables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... > beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something Multiple individuals, media outlets, stats nerds, etc make these requests and publish or blog if discrepencies are seen. For example, this FOI request was made by The Times .. not the BBC.
- spwa4 2y ago
  The whole point was to know WHAT these actions were in response to. Was it threatening individuals? Groups? Was it lying about government actions? Was it dick picks? WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. And the law is not much help: they're punished for "causing offence", not even specified to whom (mayors seem to be overrepresented, although there seem to also be majors on the receiving end)
  - defrost 2y ago
    > WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. It's the same for robberies, petty fraud, assaults, etc. Just the totals in broad categories are published. There is a reason for that, privacy, personal details of victims and the actually innocent although accused. These are things that take time, money, resources to scrub from the public record and so are not publicly published. The reporting done on robberies is done by reporters who understand the privacy laws and apply for access, by people that attend courts or pull transcripts and sign off on the privacy aspects. Researchers get full unfettered access to entire databases on the same basis. If you want to know more then take action to allocate funds to drill into the data, write to a newspaper and lobby for them to do the drudge work, approach universities that study crime stats. Crime reporters, and interested general public, look at the Court dailies and attend hearings on subjects of interest. That's how the public hears about details of a spicy robbery, fraud, or assault. That or parties involved alerting reporters.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      > It's the same for robberies The difference is robbery is much more clear cut than "causing offense", "hate", or other speech crimes.
      - defrost 2y ago
        A difference insufficient to magic resources from thin air for additional sub category processing to create sanitised public records. Again, if you or others are interested then by all means either do the work of a reporter and researcher or sponser it, or lobby to have the work done on the public purse. I'm guessing that as a UK citizen (?) you have no wish to spend your taxes on complete scrubbing and processing of every last category and sub category of record within the ever growing government archives? Perhaps subscribe to or make a solid donation to The Times and write and ask them to do further work on the FOI returns they've already sourced and to expand their document base.

defrost 2y ago

Is it? Many countries only publicly release coarse totals, eg: in the UK the 12,000 annual police actions specific to this law are bundled in with ~465,000 other public order offences publicly released and totalled in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/policeforceareadatatables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... > beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something Multiple individuals, media outlets, stats nerds, etc make these requests and publish or blog if discrepencies are seen. For example, this FOI request was made by The Times .. not the BBC.

spwa4 2y ago
The whole point was to know WHAT these actions were in response to. Was it threatening individuals? Groups? Was it lying about government actions? Was it dick picks? WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. And the law is not much help: they're punished for "causing offence", not even specified to whom (mayors seem to be overrepresented, although there seem to also be majors on the receiving end)
- defrost 2y ago
  > WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. It's the same for robberies, petty fraud, assaults, etc. Just the totals in broad categories are published. There is a reason for that, privacy, personal details of victims and the actually innocent although accused. These are things that take time, money, resources to scrub from the public record and so are not publicly published. The reporting done on robberies is done by reporters who understand the privacy laws and apply for access, by people that attend courts or pull transcripts and sign off on the privacy aspects. Researchers get full unfettered access to entire databases on the same basis. If you want to know more then take action to allocate funds to drill into the data, write to a newspaper and lobby for them to do the drudge work, approach universities that study crime stats. Crime reporters, and interested general public, look at the Court dailies and attend hearings on subjects of interest. That's how the public hears about details of a spicy robbery, fraud, or assault. That or parties involved alerting reporters.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    > It's the same for robberies The difference is robbery is much more clear cut than "causing offense", "hate", or other speech crimes.
    - defrost 2y ago
      A difference insufficient to magic resources from thin air for additional sub category processing to create sanitised public records. Again, if you or others are interested then by all means either do the work of a reporter and researcher or sponser it, or lobby to have the work done on the public purse. I'm guessing that as a UK citizen (?) you have no wish to spend your taxes on complete scrubbing and processing of every last category and sub category of record within the ever growing government archives? Perhaps subscribe to or make a solid donation to The Times and write and ask them to do further work on the FOI returns they've already sourced and to expand their document base.