Non-crime hate incidents - yes, those ridiculous practices we’ve talked about on this show - which are used to erode free speech and try to control the officially approved narrative in this country … well, it turns out even the police admit they don’t actually work.
Brought in back in 2014 during a moral panic over racism, a non-crime hate incident is anything perceived to be motivated by hostility toward a so-called “protected characteristic”: race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, you name it.
But here’s the important point - no evidence is required.
The “victim” doesn’t need to prove a thing and the police are told not to challenge this perception.
Matt Goodwin has hit out at non-crime hate incidents
GB NEWS
It’s not about fighting crime - it’s about thought-policing. Silencing people. Imposing a culture of fear where people are afraid to speak freely in case they get slapped with a record for saying something someone didn’t like.
These practices have been used to target completely lawful comments online.
Take Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, who on remembrance Sunday last year, had police at her door who informed her that an anonymous accuser had reported a year-old tweet of hers, claiming it was offensive.
She was then told she was under investigation for something she typed online and asked to come into the station.
This wasn’t a freak incident. This happened to ordinary people up and down the country.
Police time wasted and free speech under attack. And while we’re told they build some “inclusive society,” the reality is they’re a tool to crush dissent and punish the “wrong” opinions.
Allison Pearson was investigated by police GB NEWSAnd this isn’t a fringe issue.
Between 2014 and 2019, shockingly, some 120,000 non-crime hate incidents were logged. And the Free Speech Union estimates that the figure had doubled to over 250,000 by 2024.
But now, astonishingly, police authorities are admitting they don’t even work! Despite logging thousands of NCHIs every year, most forces have admitted they carry out no analysis of the data and so have little idea as to their effectiveness in detecting and preventing hate crime.
Which begs the obvious question –then why on earth are we even imposing them on tens of thousands of people?!
Not only are these a threat to free speech and individual liberty but they aren’t even effective at stopping crime.
Which is why I think we should abolish them altogether and get back to doing what we used to do in this country.
Protecting free speech. Defending free expression. Standing up for individual liberty. And ensuring we have a vibrant public square with a genuine diversity of views and opinions and including, yes, even ones we might find offensive. Because that’s what a free society looks like.
