Editor ~ Part One was published yesterday here and Part Two was published here on Independence Daily.
In confronting Hate Crime, the Hate Crime Operational Guidance Manual of the Association of Chief Police Officers for guidance of all police ranks in Britain says that Hate Crime must be motivated by Hostility. The Crown Prosecution Service gives the following guidance:
“In the absence of a precise legal definition of Hostility, consideration should be given to ordinary dictionary definitions, which include ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike”.
So, unfriendliness and dislike are enough for a Hate Incident, and expressing concern over Female Genital Mutilation can be Hate Speech. It so happened that when Shazia Hobbs objected to FGM online, the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan described her online post against FGM as Hate speech.
However, although the “Hate Crime Operational Guidance” manual says that Hate Crime must be motivated by Hostility, it insists that “evidence of hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate incident or hate crime”. In recording a motive of politically incorrect hatred by the accused, the police need no actual evidence of Hostility.
Perception is all that matters, the police are discouraged from asking the self-perceived victim for evidence, as that might be perceived as “secondary victimisation”. Secondary victimisation arises from the “institutional” prejudice inherent in insensitivity to the hurt feelings of the self-perceived “oppressed” victim.
The invention of Hate Incidents paves the road towards a police state. When accusation is the only evidence needed for an incident to be transformed by unevidenced Hostility into a Hate Incident, it is left to the police to judge whether the accused is a politically incorrect Hate offender and consequently politically unreliable. (Some hatred is Politically Correct and consequently not a crime).
The Hate Crime Operational Guidance Manual says that the main strands of hate crime are grounded on the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or transgender, and disability of the victims. Class hatred is absent from the list of politically incorrect hatreds in the Hate Crime Operational Guidance manual, as it is seen as Politically Correct if directed against the white bourgeoisie or the white working class.
The potential victims of politically incorrect hostility, that is of racism, sexism, the “phobias” and so on, have become a privileged caste of “Sacred Cows”, who must not be thwarted in the slightest way, even when 12 to 15-year-old girls are routinely raped in Rotherham and elsewhere. These Sacred Cows customarily expect the police to show them preference above the common herd of their perceived “oppressors”, and the invention of “hate crimes” enables the police to show them that preference.
A Hate offender is anyone who clashes with a Sacred Cow, seen by the Sacred Cow as motivated by hostility to the “oppressed” group that the Sacred Cow can claim membership of. When anyone from the unhallowed white common herd can be accused on a whim or a perception, that is the least that that white working-class deserve, for ignoring the call to revolution from their social superiors on the far left of British politics for more than a century.
Since MacPherson, the invention of “hate incidents” which can include “non-crimes”, that is lawful acts, is a serious threat not only to the liberty but also the career prospects of members of the “common herd” outside Sacred Cow groups. Any easily offended person, who is black, feminist, gay, trans, and so on, can saddle anyone from outside the Sacred Cow groups with a police record on the grounds of accusation alone.
As with the MacPherson Report’s definition of a racist incident in its Recommendation 12, a Hate Incident is anything reported as such, the perception by the self-perceived victim or any third party of politically incorrect hatred is all that matters.
How did something so unreasonable become part of police procedure in Britain? The answer is in the difficulty in proving that the accused is guilty of racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, sexist, or other of the Politically Incorrect offensive attitudes. Our thoughts are not available to others like words or deeds, because the mind itself is not open to inspection by others.
So, to ensure the successful pursuit of politically incorrect Hate offenders, the presumption of guilt has to replace presumption of innocence. If a Hate Speech incident is “anything perceived as such”, then informers have maximum opportunity to inform against people to the police. And they are actively encouraged to do so, as the Hate Crime Operational Guidance manual insists that Hate offences are under-reported and that those reported are merely the tip of the iceberg. On the road to the paradise of Diversity, Britain has become a paradise for police informers, just like the former Soviet Union.
What exciting powers this gives to the police, now that they have become like a Holy Inquisition into suspects’ souls, probing their dark corners in pursuit of heresy! And with no evidence necessary except denunciation! Now that they are pursuing heretical “right-wing” attitudes & beliefs, the police since MacPherson have been transformed into political commissars on the lookout for politically incorrect & unreliable people. And when perception is proof of Hate incidents, our newly political police service can arrest or caution anybody anywhere for politically incorrect Hatred [remember the “non-crimes” of MacPherson’s Recommendation 13].
So, when student Sam Brown jokingly remarked to a police cavalry officer in Oxford, “Excuse me, do you realise that your horse is gay?” police squad cars were called, and he was arrested for homophobic hate speech. The police intuitively know Hate Offenders when they meet them face to face.
Police cavalry officer………….what the devil are you talking about. If you are going to write about something as serious as this subject, then please get your basic facts right. Before I retired from the police specialist officers on horse back were called ‘Mounted Branch’. Nothing more nothing less. Yes, the recommendations within the MacPherson Report did make changes to the way that the police operated, like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and many other changes since, but that is water under the bridge now. The Stephen Lawrence investigation was a shambles and unnecessary mistakes were made. However those of us at the sharp end on the street had to adapt to the requirements made of us as we had no choice in the matter. Understanding legislation changes and your powers was/is key to being an effective police officer. The changes to the way hate crime was reported came very much later on as I remember.
OK Colin, it would have been better to write “police officer on horseback”.
The last paragraph does not add any credit to this article. I think I have read about this nonsense about the gay horse somewhere else. On the strength of what was allegedly said by this student, even if he had been arrested I doubt whether it would have passed the custody officer at the police station. Lots of stupid and silly things are said to police officers on a daily basis which don’t warrant arrest. It comes with the territory and and treated like water off a ducks back. Sounds like a very far fetched story to me.
Colin, Thames Valley Police kept Sam Brown overnight in a station cell after he refused to pay an £80 fine for a comment that they considered offensive to passers by. Here it is from the local BBC news website…….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm
Just what the hell has happened in this country ? ….. A guy that I was at school with and had not seen for decades, was in a Supermarket, and was shoved in the back, out of the way, by a Muslim guy. – ‘Watch it’ was all that was said, but provoked a punch from the Muslim. – My old school associate returned a punch of his own. – The Police, who were in the Supermarket on a separate matter, got involved. – The Muslim went home, and, yes you’ve guessed it, my old associate was taken off to the Police station. – This action was seen entirely by an employee of the shop, who told the Police of the facts at the time, yet no details were noted ! ….. Just what the hell has happened in this country ?
So what happened at the police station then? You’ve only told us half the story. Was the allegation NFA’d (No Further Action), was he cautioned (if so he must admitted it) or was he charged, and if so did he go to court, and was there a trial, and what was the result of that?
Sorry Colin, the clear difference of action at the Supermarket raised my hackles with no notice being given to a witness ! – The details I have, are that he was four hours at the Police station, and an ‘unofficial’ caution was given. – Much was made of his membership and actions at a Boxing club, but no ‘official’ caution was given, so no black mark on his record. – (He had no ‘record’ anyway) ! – It is thought that his lack of record turned the Police away from further action. ….. So an Englishman with a good character is made to lose four hours of his life, while an unknown Muslim is just sent home !
Mike, the Sacred Cows (in this case a Muslim) customarily expect the police to give them preference over the common herd. They are rarely disappointed.
This article, and part 1, are spot on, and well written. It shows how the MacPherson Report has been used as another political tool to subvert our laws and our freedoms, and walk all over our English Constitutional rights turning this country into an anti white police state. It is political warfare by the Left through politics on the original inhabitants of this island to drive them out so they can replace us with their own man-made utopia people. A unique bloodless equivalent of what the Bolsheviks achieved over the Russian people. I know there are some white Brits who say how can we fight it but there are many more who just don’t even seem to recognise its a problem and go with the flow or even agree with it. Without a modern Cromwell stepping forward I do not believe white people have a future in this country any more. If someone can explain to me how I may be wrong I’d be more than happy to know.
Ian, thanks for the compliment, but what about Part 2 ? (That was posted on Tuesday, Part 1 was posted on Monday.)……… Regarding the MacPherson Report, English law was traditionally meant to be acceptable to the Reasonable Man, but MacPherson set out to change that with his nebulous description of a Racist incident as “anything perceived as such”. Reason is a check on tyrannical rule, which by its nature is unreasonable and unjust. But MacPherson’s utterly unreasonable definition of a Racist incident is intended to bring this country closer to unreasonable and tyrannical rule.