85yo man investigated for a "non-crime hate incident"

archfi

archfi wrote: »

As this is a UK case, The Times opinion on NCHI and enhanced DBS checks.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-police-records-of-hate-incidents-freedom-to-offend-v2gdfhlr7


"At present, if an individual is reported for a hate crime, but police inquiries do not lead them to conclude that any crime was committed, then the police record the event as a “non-crime hate incident” (NCHI). These records do not merely linger in a bobby’s notebook or a police database. They show up on an enhanced DBS check, which an employer can request when considering an applicant for sensitive roles, like those in teaching or the caring professions."

I don't see that on the official page. Granted, there's an allowance for greater scrutiny but it doesn't say that a non crime event will show up.

"a basic check, which shows unspent convictions and conditional cautions

a standard check, which shows spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings

an enhanced check, which shows the same as a standard check plus any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role

an enhanced check with barred lists, which shows the same as an enhanced check plus whether the applicant is on the list of people barred from doing the role"

(https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record)

I would be utterly amazed if such an event was felt relevant when they're was no suggestion of a crime.

Shield

Shield wrote: »

I do apologise. Off-duty cops expressing their own private views should never be a thing.

Feel free to write me a letter.

Not the worst thing a PSNI officer has been accused of I suppose.

However, there is an issue with serving members giving out about required duties publicly, it undermines confidence, and nor is it their place to do so - it is veering into the political sphere.

The recording of hate incidents is of vital importance, particularly in the north, where hundreds of sectarian (being just one cohort) incidents (non crimes) are recorded every year. It is most unwelcome for a serving PSNI officer to be wading into the debate around "non-crime hate incidents", basically rubbishing the entire concept of this important aspect of police work, which is actually most useful. It does not help the perception that the PSNI do not take certain things seriously.

https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-statistics/hate-motivation-statistics/2019-20/hate-motivated-incidents-and-crimes-in-northern-ireland-2004-05-to-2019-20.pdf

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You first sentence makes no sense.

He responded personally to her, in a manner he has likely used all his life.

Receiving a letter with no offensive or threatening content - the horror!

His complaint now is that having his name recorded by the police is “absolute nonsense”, and this -


He called the case “absolute nonsense” and said it could put off other people from expressing their opinion in case they had the same experience.


He seems oblivious to her experience and how it might put other people off from expressing their opinions.

I’ve no doubt he responded to her in a manner he has likely used all his life, and she responded to him in a manner which she has likely used all her life and all. He’s getting shìtty about it now because he hadn’t planned on her reporting him to the police.

Overheal

Oaklee Putrid Stockbroker wrote: »

Not the worst thing a PSNI officer has been accused of I suppose.

However, there is an issue with serving members giving out about required duties publicly, it undermines confidence, and nor is it their place to do so - it is veering into the political sphere.

The recording of hate incidents is of vital importance, particularly in the north, where hundreds of sectarian (being just one cohort) incidents (non crimes) are recorded every year. It is most unwelcome for a serving PSNI officer to be wading into the debate around "non-crime hate incidents", basically rubbishing the entire concept of this important aspect of police work, which is actually most useful. It does not help the perception that the PSNI do not take certain things seriously.

https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-statistics/hate-motivation-statistics/2019-20/hate-motivated-incidents-and-crimes-in-northern-ireland-2004-05-to-2019-20.pdf

I think the chief erosion happening here is confidence in a system which essentially is a state maintained record of frivolous accusations.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

His complaint now is that having his name recorded by the police is “absolute nonsense”, and this -


He called the case “absolute nonsense” and said it could put off other people from expressing their opinion in case they had the same experience.


He seems oblivious to her experience and how it might put other people off from expressing their opinions.

I’ve no doubt he responded to her in a manner he has likely used all his life, and she responded to him in a manner which she has likely used all her life and all. He’s getting shìtty about it now because he hadn’t planned on her reporting him to the police.

There's a vast difference to having your details recorded by police when no crime has been committed, and receiving a non-treatening letter to your easily searchable home address after your letter and some details were published in a newspaper.

It's preposterous to claim otherwise. She could have just ignored it, he included his own personal details in his letter, it's not like he cut letters out of newspaper headlines and stuck them to a sheet of paper to remain anonymous.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I think the chief erosion happening here is confidence in a system which essentially is a state maintained record of frivolous accusations.

Regardless, it is not the place of an officer to publicly comment like this on aspects of their work, imo. Just my 2 cents.

At least this system is formally organised, unlike the gossip and who knows what the Gardai used to put on PULSE.

AdrianBalboa

Leg End Reject wrote: »

There's a vast difference to having your details recorded by police when no crime has been committed, and receiving a non-treatening letter to your easily searchable home address after you letter and some details were published in a newspaper.

It's preposterous to claim otherwise. She could have just ignored it, he included his own personal details in his letter, it's not like he cut letters out of newspaper headlines and stuck them to a sheet of paper to remain anonymous.

Rather than blame her for not ignoring it why aren’t you blaming him for sending the letter in the first place?

It doesn’t make a difference if it was easy to find her address on the internet, it was still inappropriate to mail it to her personally.

He didn’t threaten her but there was nothing in that letter to suggest that he was only a doddery old man airing a grievance. He took the time to find out where she lived and tell her exactly what he thought of her letter. She would be quite right to be concerned that he might find his way to her home to let her know what he really thinks.

The free speech merchants or the people who don’t understand Orwell are getting “you can’t say nuffink anymore” mega outrage boners from this but the fact of the matter is that it has never been acceptable to contact people directly at home over letters in the media. It’s not done and it never has been done. It’s weird and it’s creepy.

Leg End Reject

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Rather than blame her for not ignoring it why aren’t you blaming him for sending the letter in the first place?

It doesn’t make a difference if it was easy to find her address on the internet, it was still inappropriate to mail it to her personally.

He didn’t threaten her but there was nothing in that letter to suggest that he was only a doddery old man airing a grievance. He took the time to find out where she lived and tell her exactly what he thought of her letter. She would be quite right to be concerned that he might find his way to her home to let her know what he really thinks.

The free speech merchants or the people who don’t understand Orwell are getting “you can’t say nuffink anymore” mega outrage boners from this but the fact of the matter is that it has never been acceptable to contact people directly at home over letters in the media. It’s not done and it never has been done. It’s weird and it’s creepy.

I'm not blaming him because I think he acted in a manner common for his generation.

I didn't claim he was doddery.

I don't think it's weird and creepy. Old fashioned, yes. Another poster has already stated it's not that unheard of either. They quoted your previous post saying it never happens.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

There's a vast difference to having your details recorded by police when no crime has been committed, and receiving a non-treatening letter to your easily searchable home address after your letter and some details were published in a newspaper.

It's preposterous to claim otherwise. She could have just ignored it, he included his own personal details in his letter, it's not like he cut letters out of newspaper headlines and stuck them to a sheet of paper to remain anonymous.

She could have ignored it, but she chose not to, and neither did the police who followed up with an investigation and recorded the incident meaning he’ll be less likely to do the same thing again to anyone else in the future.

AdrianBalboa

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'm not blaming him because I think he acted in a manner common for his generation.

I didn't claim he was doddery.

I don't think it's weird and creepy. Old fashioned, yes. Another poster has already stated it's not that unheard of either. They quoted your previous post saying it never happens.

It is common to reply to a letter to the editor with another letter to the editor. That is the etiquette.

It’s not common for people of any generation to do what he did. Because he behaved like a creepy weirdo. Perhaps it is not unheard of but cases of it happening are vanishingly few because it is very strange behaviour. And it was never common.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bubblypop wrote: »

Unless there are child protection issues.

What do you mean?

Dyr

The idea that the cops are reluctant parties in this is hilarious.

If there's one thing that the police love its poorly written laws that give them scope for overeach.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She could have ignored it, but she chose not to, and neither did the police who followed up with an investigation and recorded the incident meaning he’ll be less likely to do the same thing again to anyone else in the future.

Well the police probably had no choice in whether to ignore her or not, they have to follow procedure.

None of us know if he'll be less likely to do it in the future. He may well have done it before and the recipient(s) didn't have a hissy fit.

It's a letter, not a weapon of mass destruction. A little bit of perspective could have saved all this fuss, she's gotten more publicity now and even posters here know where she lives.

Leg End Reject

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It is common to reply to a letter to the editor with another letter to the editor. That is the etiquette.

It’s not common for people of any generation to do what he did. Because he behaved like a creepy weirdo. Perhaps it is not unheard of but cases of it happening are vanishingly few because it is very strange behaviour. And it was never common.

You call out people for claiming he's a doddery old man (I didn't), but it's ok for you to call him a creepy weirdo?

AdrianBalboa

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You call out people for claiming he's a doddery old man (I didn't), but it's ok for you to call him a creepy weirdo?

I never called anyone out for calling him a doddery old man. I was saying that people keep highlighting his age and that he was from a different generation in an effort to defend his behaviour. They were insinuating that he was a harmless (doddery) auld fella just innocently writing a letter to a girl in the paper and dropping it off while he was on his way to pick up more tobacco for his pipe.

He is a creepy weirdo. He looked up her address on the internet and wrote her a letter. He doesn’t even know her and he’s never met her. If that happened to me I would seriously get the creeps and so would the vast majority of the people reading this discussion.

Leg End Reject

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

I never called anyone out for calling him a doddery old man. I was saying that people keep highlighting his age and that he was from a different generation in an effort to defend his behaviour. They were insinuating that he was a harmless (doddery) auld fella just innocently writing a letter to a girl in the paper and dropping it off while he was on his way to pick up more tobacco for his pipe.

He is a creepy weirdo. He looked up her address on the internet and wrote her a letter. He doesn’t even know her and he’s never met her. If that happened to me I would seriously get the creeps and so would the vast majority of the people reading this discussion.

Well at 85 it's not a stretch to say he's from a different generation and likely to be old-fashioned in his ways. That does not equate to doddery.

Her name is on her twitter account, she has a daughter named Betty, she identifies as an activist, she wrote a letter to a newspaper and her name and locality were published. It's not like he had to hire detectives to track her down.

AdrianBalboa

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Well at 85 it's not a stretch to say he's from a different generation and likely to be old-fashioned in his ways. That does not equate to doddery.

Her name is on her twitter account, she has a daughter named Betty, she identifies as an activist, she wrote a letter to a newspaper and her name and locality were published. It's not like he had to hire detectives to track her down.

It doesn’t matter how easy it is to find her address. He shouldn’t have sent her a letter in the first place.

My address is available on the internet because of my line of work. That doesn’t mean I would appreciate it if someone from here started sending me letters or contacting me in any capacity away from the site because of some grievance that arose here. They should go through the proper channels, whatever they are.

Similarly he should have sent his letter to the editor of the paper rather than her personally. That’s the etiquette, it always has been the etiquette and it was never any different. Even in his day.

Leg End Reject

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It doesn’t matter how easy it is to find her address. He shouldn’t have sent her a letter in the first place.

My address is available on the internet because of my line of work. That doesn’t mean I would appreciate it if someone from here started sending me letters or contacting me in any capacity away from the site because of some grievance that arose here. They should go through the proper channels, whatever they are.

Similarly he should have sent his letter to the editor of the paper rather than her personally. That’s the etiquette, it always has been the etiquette and it was never any different. Even in his day.

You haven't used your real name here though so we wouldn't know where to find your address.

If you allow your information to be published, you need to accept that others can access it.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Well the police probably had no choice in whether to ignore her or not, they have to follow procedure.

None of us know if he'll be less likely to do it in the future. He may well have done it before and the recipient(s) didn't have a hissy fit.

It's a letter, not a weapon of mass destruction. A little bit of perspective could have saved all this fuss, she's gotten more publicity now and even posters here know where she lives.

It’s true, I don’t know that he’ll be less likely to do it in the future, but I would hope he would have more sense.

A little bit of perspective is surely also required on the part of people defending his behaviour, he wasn’t actually convicted of committing a criminal offence or anything, and the woman in question certainly didn’t do anything wrong, let alone writing her a cautionary letter to let her know personally that as far as he was concerned, she had joined the people who take the position that the only view that should be thought about is their own.

A little bit of perspective on his part too and there would have been no fuss at all.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What do you mean?

Just because something is not a crime, it can still be disclosed if it is a child protection issue

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

The idea that the cops are reluctant parties in this is hilarious.

If there's one thing that the police love its poorly written laws that give them scope for overeach.

Yep.
Nothing the police love more than wasting time on rubbish. It's great, sure what else would they be doing?!!

AdrianBalboa

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You haven't used your real name here though so we wouldn't know where to find your address.

If you allow your information to be published, you need to accept that others can access it.

Oh my god does everything have to be completely analogous for you people? It could be me here or it could be a customer support agent working for Dunnes getting calls at home from customers after hours or any number of different scenarios.

If someone’s private information is available online the onus is on the person who accessed it not to use it unethically or inappropriately. In other words it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference morally how easy it is to find her address, he behaved immorally by sending her the letter in the first place. He is the only person to blame.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bubblypop wrote: »

Just because something is not a crime, it can still be disclosed if it is a child protection issue

Well, if that’s the case, it needs to be explicitly stated and anything that isn’t a child protection issue shouldn’t be recorded.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, if that’s the case, it needs to be explicitly stated and anything that isn’t a child protection issue shouldn’t be recorded.

Lots of incidents are recorded here in Ireland. They are not disclosed because they are not relevant.
Relevant incidents are disclosed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bubblypop wrote: »

Lots of incidents are recorded here in Ireland. They are not disclosed because they are not relevant.
Relevant incidents are disclosed.

Police clearance is needed for other jobs outside of working with children. To have a record without a having been convicted of a crime is getting into dodgy territory. And how does the individual know that non-crime incident won’t be disclosed, even in error?

crossman47

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

He did hassle her. Any veneer of politeness or cordiality was washed off when he decided to send her the letter personally instead of to the editor of the newspaper she wrote into.

That's stretching an argument so far the elastic has snapped. The fact is I would be more sympathetic to her viewpoint than his but I see nothing at all wrong with that letter.

One eyed Jack

crossman47 wrote: »

That's stretching an argument so far the elastic has snapped. The fact is I would be more sympathetic to her viewpoint than his but I see nothing at all wrong with that letter.

How is it stretching the argument? People have a right to have their privacy respected. Stretching the argument is claiming that there’s nothing wrong with the letter when it’s quite obvious the intent was to intimidate her into silence. It backfired on him and now he’s trying to play the victim by claiming that the incident being recorded by the police has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. That’s stretching the argument.

It wasn’t just what he said, it was what he did.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Police clearance is needed for other jobs outside of working with children. To have a record without a having been convicted of a crime is getting into dodgy territory. And how does the individual know that non-crime incident won’t be disclosed, even in error?

Why would it be?
Convictions are not non crime incidents.
Nobody 'has a record ' without conviction. Police having records of incidents they attended is not the same as a previous conviction.

paw patrol

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is it stretching the argument? People have a right to have their privacy respected. Stretching the argument is claiming that there’s nothing wrong with the letter when it’s quite obvious the intent was to intimidate her into silence. It backfired on him and now he’s trying to play the victim by claiming that the incident being recorded by the police has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. That’s stretching the argument.

It wasn’t just what he said, it was what he did.

an address isn't private nor protected. It's only nearly every form ever.
Name - Address.

Post is a valid and legal avenue of communication there is no prerequisite to know somebody to post them a letter. It beggars belief that you would think there should be. You are being overly sensitive as is your hero in the story.
As said previously - I wonder how some of you function in society

osarusan

A question for any police officers here in Ireland: if I go into a police station and make a complaint that the way my neighbour hangs her clothes out is racist (too many white/black items), the police are correctly going to think it's a load of utter rubbish I'm talking. But are they free to just tell me to just go away, or do they have to record it in some way?

And if so, what are their options in terms of how it's documented or described or categorised?