After the Court of Appeal ruled the existing guidance unlawful, the College of Policing promised to revise it. That revision was published today. Will it be enough to avoid my challenge via JR?
Retweeting unfounded allegations from 2003? How do you sleep? First you grift for the far right incels and racists in the sick Bad Law Project - Harry Miller’s Tommy Robinson fanboy gang - and now this? What’s next? Chemtrails? How low can you go?
Hi Sarah, thanks for this detailed update. It looks like the new guidance is *relatively* better than the previous one but it is still irrational, so we are dealing here with degrees of irrationality, which leads one to ask what degree of irrationality is acceptable in College of Policing guidelines.
I suggest that even if there is such a concept as "non-crime hate incident" (is it actually defined in any primary legislation?) its instantiations (i.e. actual particular incidents so described) cannot lead to criminal sanctions, since it is by its own definition a non-crime. And if it cannot lead, by its own definition, being non-crime, to a criminal sanction by the state then surely its recording serves no discernible lawful purpose and therefore needs not be recorded?
Retweeting unfounded allegations from 2003? How do you sleep? First you grift for the far right incels and racists in the sick Bad Law Project - Harry Miller’s Tommy Robinson fanboy gang - and now this? What’s next? Chemtrails? How low can you go?
Hi Sarah, thanks for this detailed update. It looks like the new guidance is *relatively* better than the previous one but it is still irrational, so we are dealing here with degrees of irrationality, which leads one to ask what degree of irrationality is acceptable in College of Policing guidelines.
I suggest that even if there is such a concept as "non-crime hate incident" (is it actually defined in any primary legislation?) its instantiations (i.e. actual particular incidents so described) cannot lead to criminal sanctions, since it is by its own definition a non-crime. And if it cannot lead, by its own definition, being non-crime, to a criminal sanction by the state then surely its recording serves no discernible lawful purpose and therefore needs not be recorded?