DeepSummary
The podcast episode discusses the controversial practice of police forces in the UK investigating and recording "non-crime hate incidents," which are instances where no actual crime has been committed but someone perceives hate or offense based on protected characteristics like race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The host, Andrew Doyle, argues that this is a waste of police resources, infringes on freedom of expression, and is a form of authoritarian thought policing.
Doyle cites examples of public figures, including politicians, who have had non-crime hate incidents recorded against them for making statements that were deemed offensive by someone, even if factual. He highlights the case of Harry Miller, a former police officer who successfully challenged the legality of recording non-crime hate incidents in court. Despite rulings and government directives against the practice, the College of Policing and Police Scotland continue to record and monitor these incidents.
Doyle criticizes the Scottish National Party's (SNP) new hate crime law as taking this authoritarian approach further. He argues that the recording of non-crime hate incidents is a threat to liberal democracy, akin to the concept of "thought crime" described in George Orwell's novel 1984. He calls for the abolition of the College of Policing and urges the public to resist such infringements on liberty through the ballot box or civil disobedience.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- UK police forces have been recording and investigating "non-crime hate incidents" where no actual crime has occurred but someone perceived offense based on protected characteristics.
- This practice is criticized as a waste of police resources, an infringement on free speech, and a form of Orwellian "thought policing" that threatens liberal democracy.
- Despite court rulings and government directives against it, police bodies like the College of Policing and Police Scotland continue the practice.
- The Scottish National Party's new hate crime law is seen as doubling down on this authoritarian approach.
- The host argues the public may need to resist such overreach through voting or civil disobedience to defend freedom of expression.
- Notable examples are given of public figures having non-crime hate incidents recorded against them for making controversial but legal statements.
- There are concerns these non-crime records could negatively impact job prospects even though no crime occurred.
- The rationale is to monitor potential "hate" that could lead to future crimes, which critics liken to dystopian "pre-crime" concepts.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “What business do our police forces have in investigating non crime? Is this not the precise opposite of their purpose?“ by Andrew Doyle
- “The idea would be that even if someone hadnt committed a crime, signs of hate needed to be monitored in case these sentiments developed into criminal activity in the future. Philip K Dick once described this kind of thing as pre crime. He thought he was writing dystopian science fiction, but in actuality he was predicting the state of the UK in the early 21st century.“ by Andrew Doyle
- “Not only is all of this a huge waste of police resources and taxpayers money, but it's not even lawful.“ by Andrew Doyle
- “We are now firmly in the age of thought crime anticipated by George Orwell.“ by Andrew Doyle
Entities
Book
Person
Organization
Episode Information
TRIGGERnometry
TRIGGERnometry
5/3/24