Non-crime hate incidents

Anyone on here know what the consequence would be of having one of these recorded against you?

A Scottish MP retweeted this newspaper column:

https://archive.is/2023.11.18-070859/https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scottish-government-is-fostering-a-cult-of-gender-identity-ideology-that-is-destroying-lives-susan-dalgety-4413621

…and the police recorded a non-crime hate incident against him, but didn’t tell him.

Interested to understand how having a NCHI on your record would affect you in practice?

I would like to see someone challenge that under article 6 ECHR

Would you like to pay for it?

There would be no consequences in practice, obviously, apart from it being available on record if it was ever relevant to a future matter

Would it eg come up in police checks for regulated industries?

A NCHI does not form part of a criminal record and is not, generally available nationally. It is not on the police national computer which is where 99% of checks take place but rather on the police national database which only very few officers/staff have access to for specific reasons. Obviously it will also be on the local police force’s database too where the incident was recorded.

When you do a standard DBS check then it would only appear if the local force had recorded it and felt it relevant to disclose for whatever reason (this is highly unlikely).

It could be disclosed on an enhanced DBS check (if you wanted to work with vulnerable children for example) but it would be reviewed by an officer of above the rank of superintendent (I think) to see if it was relevant.

Therefore it is highly unlikely to have any impact on most people. Not making a judgement on whether this is a good or bad thing. Just answering the OP.

Please remember though, (Clergs in particular) this is not something the police choose to record or not, this is what we are told we must record by the Home Office (in E&W at least).

Very useful post, Canary Jim - thanks

Must be playing merry hell with their decision to run the election campaign on culture wars and trans issues. Can't say I have the slightest ounce of sympathy. The SNP seem such a credible option compared to the Tories. I think I may move there and help them along.

Thanks Canary Jim.

I needed to do an enhanced DBS to be a Trustee of a Multi-Academy Trust. What rules govern the Superintendent’s decision to disclose the NCHI? Are these disclosed to the person against whom the NCHI is recorded?

Also why are NCHIs not notified to the miscreant?

I'm sure he'll shake this off. Back in 2009 he was all in favour of an Act that considers it possible that a woman can have a penis.

10 June 2009 - Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act.

It's all on here. He just needs to show that to the police?

https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions

If it's not a crime why are the police recording it?

Yeah. Especially when he's demonstrably fine with women having penises. This is all so unreasonable.

Because they would rather record actual crimes as civil matters and this papers the gaps.

YWTF - there are no rules as such as far as I am aware. The main thing is that they should only disclose information which is relevant to the enquiry. So if someone is applying for a job working with young children and he was accused of a homophobic tweet 10 years ago which wasn’t criminal then it shouldn’t be disclosed. If it’s a job working with vulnerable teenagers who might very well question their identity and 2 months ago he made a transphobic tweet then it probably is. It’s all down to context.

As far as telling the “subject” of the record, there is no obligation to do so currently (although I would argue it is best practice) whereas if it is a crime we have. A duty to inform the suspect of an allegation even if we are taking no action.

Sails - we record it because we have to according the the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR). It almost certainly stems from previous occasions where we haven’t and someone has gone on to get a job where they have misbehaved and we’ve been criticised for failing to disclose but I don’t know the specifics.
It’s not quite the same but linked to why we now disclose previous crime allegations even when no action is taken because of the Soham murders where we failed to do so.

YWTF - there are no rules as such as far as I am aware. The main thing is that they should only disclose information which is relevant to the enquiry. So if someone is applying for a job working with young children and he was accused of a homophobic tweet 10 years ago which wasn’t criminal then it shouldn’t be disclosed. If it’s a job working with vulnerable teenagers who might very well question their identity and 2 months ago he made a transphobic tweet then it probably is. It’s all down to context.

Interesting.

Do you not think there being "no rules" governing a situtation where someone has a marker put against them (a) without being told about it so (b) having no chance to make any representations about it and (c) which is based entirely on the perspective of the individual making the report and (d) has real-life detrimental consequneces for that person, including on their employment, might be a bit problematic?

Also, do you think that the Police forces who pay Stonewall to train them on what is transphobic and what isn't transphobic are best placed to make that judgment?

Just stated the facts sun. No judgements or opinions. You asked me to explain what it meant so I did. You can consider the rights and wrongs of it as well as I can.