/ Rise in incidents of hate/intolerance since Brexit vote

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 09 Jul 2017
This is gloomy reading. I've no doubt not all Brexit voters are racist or intolerant, but the 'national climate' seems to have changed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racist-hate-crimes-surge-to-record-high-after-brexit-...
9
David Martin - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

I'd be less worried as I'm not convinced this is a rise of race-hate as a result of Brexit.

More that what was said behind closed doors, in homes, pubs and other quiet corners is simply now being said more publicly because of a (possibly justified) feeling that these are no longer minority views.

Brexit is the symptom, not the cause, and I'd rather have people with these views stating them outright instead of having it all simmer away under the surface. The only way you can change these views is to have them challenged, not by pushing them underground and in to echo chambers.

Hopefuly in doing so, those who oppose race-hate might also learn to hone their own debating skills, and perhaps realise they themselves can be just as biased and bigoted and could do with a bit of empathy and understanding.
14
Timmd on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:
> I'd be less worried as I'm not convinced this is a rise of race-hate as a result of Brexit.

> More that what was said behind closed doors, in homes, pubs and other quiet corners is simply now being said more publicly because of a (possibly justified) feeling that these are no longer minority views.

> Brexit is the symptom, not the cause, and I'd rather have people with these views stating them outright instead of having it all simmer away under the surface.

I can't see how that's any consolation for anybody on the receiving end, though? If a girl who lives on my street was targeted due to wearing a head scarf, I think that may be the last thing on her mind. She's just gone past my window now, which is why I mention it, but it could be anybody who 'doesn't seem British'. Alternatively, I know somebody called Rachel who looks like she is from overseas through having a Chilean grandfather, and she could be targeted through being browner in skin colour.

> The only way you can change these views is to have them challenged, not by pushing them underground and in to echo chambers.

I agree.

> Hopefuly in doing so, those who oppose race-hate might also learn to hone their own debating skills, and perhaps realise they themselves can be just as biased and bigoted and could do with a bit of empathy and understanding.

We all have biases, of course we do, it's integral to being human, but this is about people being abused by strangers while out in public. If the way it (intolerance of people perceived not to be from here) comes out is people being abused or attacked, unless the instigators get caught, there seems to be little opportunity for debate being used to change their points of view, it seems to me? What's my friend Rachel to do...cling onto their arm to stop them from leaving and carefully explain that just because she is brown, she was still born in the UK and could whoever it is bare that in mind before abusing another person, and ask them what their reasoning or motivation is?

Perhaps it's me, but I don't quite grasp what you're suggesting what it is that people should do.
Post edited at 14:55
1
john arran - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:

If people currently are afraid or embarrassed to speak their intolerant minds, they must already know that such views are not socially acceptable. I'm not sure what more is to be gained from those views being aired and challenged. Quite likely they'll be aired in situations where they won't be challenged (maybe due to the recipient's fear of violence , or maybe by being aired in like-minded moronic company), both of which could lead to reinforcement, and society will be worse off for that.

That's not to say we shouldn't encourage discussion and debate so that the reasons why such views are unacceptable can be well disseminated, but that doesn't sound like what was being suggested.
1
Timmd on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:
> Hopefuly in doing so, those who oppose race-hate might also learn to hone their own debating skills, and perhaps realise they themselves can be just as biased and bigoted and could do with a bit of empathy and understanding.

I don't get what there is to debate, about things like race hate. It's not a political point of view, or something abstract, it's about not liking somebody due to the colour of their skin - they way their hair grows - the shape of their features, and any other physical differences; this is what race hate is. What is there to say other than it's not fair because we can't control how we're born, and wrong because we're all human? Where is the middle ground to be debated?

If wanting to stop immigration was people's motive for voting Brexit, they've succeeded and should be pleased, rather than attacking people who are too different from them.
Post edited at 15:11
1
David Martin - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

I think the fact you can't see the need for debate is part of the problem.

For one, accusations of racism get thrown around like confetti. Second, the very fact that people get seduced by the idea of blaming "the ither" might come out of genuine grievances that are not being addressed - perhaps exactly because they are labelled racist for having or poorly articulating those grievances in the first place.
3
Timmd on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:
> I think the fact you can't see the need for debate is part of the problem.

I didn't say I don't see the need for debate, I asked what is there to be debated about things like race hate, in response to you posting this.

''Hopefuly in doing so, those who oppose race-hate might also learn to hone their own debating skills, and perhaps realise they themselves can be just as biased and bigoted and could do with a bit of empathy and understanding''

Perhaps I'm being too literal...?
Post edited at 15:28
Murderous_Crow - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:
> the very fact that people get seduced by the idea of blaming "the ither" might come out of genuine grievances that are not being addressed - perhaps exactly because they are labelled racist for having or poorly articulating those grievances in the first place.

I'd agree with some of that, but not all. Racism today is a conscious choice: with the weight of differing opinion now available, individuals are responsible for their choice in this matter. John Arran puts it perfectly when he says

> I'm not sure what more is to be gained from those views being aired and challenged.

And Timmd with

> What is there to say other than it's not fair because we can't control how we're born, and wrong because we're all human? Where is the middle ground to be debated?

It's not a question of intelligence or ability to articulate David, it's a question of choosing to be a decent f*cking human. There are non-racists of all backgrounds, ethnicities, religions and beliefs. And intelligence levels.

It's not a case of being 'labelled' racist either. If you say racist things, or behave in a racist way, you're a racist. It's not a permanent label because it's a state of mind, and here's the main thing - it's subject to change. Skin colour or heritage is not.

Genuine and justifiable grievances do exist, and are rooted in a massive, fundamental and ever-evolving economic change, both in this country and worldwide. The fact that people increasingly vent their anger in the form of hatred and suspicion for the other, represents a fait accompli for the right-wing establishment.

It's misdirection on a massive scale, a cheap, blaring conjuror's trick to keep us diverted while the rug is gently pulled from underneath us.
Post edited at 16:53
2
Murderous_Crow - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:

Just to be clear, I wasn't swearing at you, David. Just conveying my passion for what I see as the basic common sense and decency of the position. It's fundamentally unfair to be racist: no-one would want to be discriminated against in such a way were the positions of the majority and minority reversed.

However I am extremely uncomfortable with your allocation of responsibility for the issue onto the debating skills (or lack of such) of 'those who oppose race hate'. I fully agree with you that racist views need to be challenged, but I would point out that progress has only been made in this sphere as public opinion has gradually changed for the better in recent decades.

It changed because people became aware of it, people spoke out, people became outraged about it, and gradually public opinion came to frown upon such attitudes, oppressing the racist paradigm through the weight of moral contempt. We used to have signs saying 'no Blacks / Irish / Dogs'. That was in ours or our parents' lifetime.

Racism (as opposed to racists) *should* be oppressed, by the weight of contempt, for the simple reason that it's vile.

1
cragtaff - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

How about all the hate expressed by remoaners for the majority who voted leave?
24
captain paranoia - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:

> Brexit is the symptom, not the cause,

I fear you might be right. But it was the rise of UKIP and the Brexit referendum that opened Pandora's box.

> The only way you can change these views is to have them challenged, not by pushing them underground and in to echo chambers.

Maybe. But I think most people are stuck in echo chambers, on both sides. We just seem to have become very much more polarised in recent years. That's what happens when you have single-issue referendums, driven by dogmatic debate, rather than nuanced discussion. IndyRef, Brexit.
Post edited at 18:20
captain paranoia - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> Perhaps I'm being too literal...?

I think you're being too literal.

What can be debated is what grievances might lead to race or other hatred. And whether those grievances have any basis in fact, or are due to rumour or 'fake news'.

I've just been listening to the IOT podcast on witchcraft (or, more specifically, the persecution of 'witches'). And there's a lot in parallel with many perceived grievances and resulting hatred...
Post edited at 18:28
Big Ger - on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

How much of this is due to
a) The seeming ever expanding nature of what now constitutes "racism".
b) The need for some, who are in general unaffected by racism, to virtue signal, by flagging up on social media any perceived "racism".
c) The search for sensationalism on the part of the press.
16
Dauphin on 09 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

The Independent. What made you think that?

;)

D
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> b) The need for some, who are in general unaffected by racism, to virtue signal, by flagging up on social media any perceived "racism".

It's funny this need to excuse anything as Virtue signalling. Firstly I don't see what bad about "virtue" anyway, secondly you have no evidence for that.
Did it occur to you that what you see as "virtue signalling" maybe simply people defending their rights ?
Post edited at 07:25
2
Murderous_Crow - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> How much of this is due to
> a) The seeming ever expanding nature of what now constitutes "racism".
> b) The need for some, who are in general unaffected by racism, to virtue signal, by flagging up on social media any perceived "racism".
> c) The search for sensationalism on the part of the press.

It's interesting you see these three threads as being central to the debate. I was tempted to dismiss what you'd said as a way of dismissing the debate altogether, but maybe you're not. Assuming you are actually asking:

a) I've seen racism first hand on quite a few occasions in my life. I think that over the course of the last couple of decades, overt racism has reduced, but we are still left with a genuine problem of unspoken and often unconscious racial / heritage bias. The literature bears this point of view out: BAME people still have significantly reduced levels of opportunity in employment. Further, overt racism would indeed seem to be rising once more, and racially-motivated attacks are a significant issue - and will be ad infinitum, as even one such attack is too many. So what constitutes racism (it doesn't need quotation marks, it's an established problem) is a discussion very much worth having. And I think we need to keep having that discussion until such time as the playing field is level.

b) Any social movement is dead in the water without support. If that notion gives a prissy and pretentious person a chance to act out their 'virtue' (quotation marks justified here) online, so what? People act out their hypocrisies and fantasy lives online in various ways, Big Ger, in case you hadn't noticed.

c) The same press that also gave us

http://uk.businessinsider.com/daily-mail-crush-the-saboteurs-front-page-brexit

And similar. Sensationalism is their business fella, it's stunningly naive to act as if it's not.


Post edited at 07:50
1
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

It would be good to have an independent audit of claims such as "hate crimes rise", since such numbers are *hugely* dependent on what gets called a "hate crime" and how the figures are arrived at.

A lot of such stats are put out by pressure groups who have an agenda, and The Indy article in the OP quotes lots of these uncritically, without attempting any objective perspective.
2
Murderous_Crow - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Coel these figures are released by police forces. The complainant does not categorise the crime - the service does. The figures are about as high-quality as they're going to get. With your academic background I'm surprised you're raising this point.
Post edited at 07:54
2
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> Coel these figures are released by police forces. The complainant does not categorise the crime - the service does.

I understand that if the complainant states that *they* *perceive* the incident as a "hate" incident, then the police are obliged to record it as such.

Which is why it would be good to have a breakdown and audit of statistics in the report. It's really hard to know what we're dealing with otherwise.
1
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> This is gloomy reading. I've no doubt not all Brexit voters are racist or intolerant, but the 'national climate' seems to have changed.

You don't really need stats anyway to see that's something has changed in the UK. However you may need to be foreign born to realise it.
Here is a little experiment, go to any working class pubs outside of the big cities in England and speak a foreign language, preferably european . Chances are you'll get lots of very strange looks and quite likely you'll get some abuse.

1
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> I understand that if the complainant states that *they* *perceive* the incident as a "hate" incident, then the police are obliged to record it as such.

Ha yes, it's probably the victims falsely reporting hate crimes, of course....
Post edited at 08:30
4
baron - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Have you ever been to Wales?
1
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

> Have you ever been to Wales?

Never spent too much time there.
1
Bob Hughes - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> How much of this is due to

> a) The seeming ever expanding nature of what now constitutes "racism".

> b) The need for some, who are in general unaffected by racism, to virtue signal, by flagging up on social media any perceived "racism".

> c) The search for sensationalism on the part of the press.

None of those things have increased noticeably in the past 12 months yet the article says that religious and hate crime has increased by 23% in the past 12 months compared with a 0.4% decrease in 2011/2012.
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Ha yes, it's probably the victims falsely reporting hate crimes, of course....

It's exactly that attitude that causes me to be distinctly dubious about many of these claims of big rises in "hate crimes".
2
ads.ukclimbing.com
Doug on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

Friend of mine was told to 'F* off back home you F* foreigners' when speaking Welsh in Peterborough just after the referendum (first time ever in several years of living there). She did try to explain that Welsh was more British than English but failed.
1
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's exactly that attitude that causes me to be distinctly dubious about many of these claims of big rises in "hate crimes".

Seriously, if you want to believe that the rise in hate crimes are the fault of the victims of hate crimes, knock yourself out, but you're just deluding yourself.
There is plenty of evidence that social attitudes towards immigrants have shifted in the country, obviously it correlates with a rise in hate crimes and abuse.
4
Bob Kemp - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to cragtaff:
> How about all the hate expressed by remoaners for the majority who voted leave?

Hatred expressed in response to people's voting behaviour is very different to hatred expressed on the basis of someone's skin colour or ethnic background, things you just can't help. Not that expressing hatred in any debate is a mature or useful way to conduct the debate of course...

BTW, can I suggest that using the insulting term 'remoaners' might not be the best way of complaining about hatred in that debate?
2
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Seriously, if you want to believe that the rise in hate crimes are the fault of the victims of hate crimes, knock yourself out, but you're just deluding yourself.

Your obnoxious attitude is noted.

I don't see anything wrong with asking about what such figures actually mean, in terms of a sensible breakdown and assessment of how reliable they are.
8
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Your obnoxious attitude is noted.

Enjoy.

> I don't see anything wrong with asking about what such figures actually mean, in terms of a sensible breakdown and assessment of how reliable they are.

all very commendable, however maybe you should consider that most likely explanation for a rise in hate crime in what are bog standard statistics is probably due to just that, a rise in hate crimes.
But no, your first explanation is that it's the victims overreporting them, when there is no evidence of that. Sorry but it's delusional, and borderline complacent.
Post edited at 12:32
3
baron - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

I might suggest that for a large number of people in the UK a racist attitude has been ever present.
The passing of laws making racist activities illegal has seemingly made these attitudes less socially acceptable but I fear that this is not the truth of the matter.
I don't have any non white friends, nor any non 'christian' ones.
That's not a deliberate choice but a reflection of the demographic of where I live and work.
I guess this is also true of many people throughout the UK.
The majority of the people I know or meet are if not overtly racist at least racially prejudiced. This includes people of different races.
They wouldn't actually do an individual deliberate harm but are more than happy to disparage whole groups based on their race or religion.
And these are often well educated and often well travelled people.
Recent terrorist attacks and the Brexit vote might have emboldened some people but I think, and obviously can't prove, that many people haven't lost their racist attitudes.
1
David Martin - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> all very commendable, however maybe you should consider that most likely explanation for a rise in hate crime in what are bog standard statistics is probably due to just that, a rise in hate crimes.

The article seems to insinuate Brexit itself is the cause. Which, even as a remoaner, I find a little unfair as it somewhat implies voting Brexit makes you an instigator of racism.

It's quite possible the real cause in the rise is anything from altered statistical collection to an increase in the propensity for people to want to report race-hate as a result of Brexit (i.e. those fvckers voting for Brexit implicitly said they dislike me, so next time I'm on the end of any perceived abuse from someone who sounds like a Brexiteer I'm going to the police about it).

I suspect its a combination of many factors. But I'm skeptical the dramatic increase in reports in 12 months is a result of an increase in individuals actually hating other races or foreigners, or that this was caused by Brexit. In fact, it seems to me to be quite inflammatory, divisive and counter-productive for a newspaper to insinuate such things if potentially incorrect.
Post edited at 12:46
jkarran - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:

> I'd be less worried as I'm not convinced this is a rise of race-hate as a result of Brexit.
> More that what was said behind closed doors, in homes, pubs and other quiet corners is simply now being said more publicly because of a (possibly justified) feeling that these are no longer minority views.

I'm not sure I take much reassurance from your distinction! Hate that emboldens others, hate which is publicly expressed unchallenged normalising the scapegoating of minorities is worse IMO than hate that rots within then dies with the individual.

> Brexit is the symptom, not the cause, and I'd rather have people with these views stating them outright instead of having it all simmer away under the surface. The only way you can change these views is to have them challenged, not by pushing them underground and in to echo chambers.

I disagree. Accepting, even tolerating the expression of these views just normalises them again, they were successfully challenged to the point they were slowly disappearing from our streets and playgrounds. Yeah they live on in their little echo chambers but not forever. It's not a positive change to see them widely expressed again because the reality is they generally aren't challenged, they're expressed in safe spaces among like minded individuals and targeted at those who cannot and will not fight back. There is no coincidence that attacks on religious minorities are overwhelmingly male on female, this isn't a resurfacing healthy reasoned debate, it's the violent venting of cowardly inadequates.

> Hopefuly in doing so, those who oppose race-hate might also learn to hone their own debating skills, and perhaps realise they themselves can be just as biased and bigoted and could do with a bit of empathy and understanding.

Understanding?
jk
Post edited at 13:06
1
jkarran - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

> The majority of the people I know or meet are if not overtly racist at least racially prejudiced. This includes people of different races.
> They wouldn't actually do an individual deliberate harm but are more than happy to disparage whole groups based on their race or religion.

Really? You should try meeting some better people!
jk
1
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But no, your first explanation is that it's the victims overreporting them, when there is no evidence of that. Sorry but it's delusional, and borderline complacent.

I haven't asserted any explanation for the figures nor suggested why there is a rise. You are simply attributing to me things that I've not said -- as I said, your obnoxious attitude is noted.

All I've asked for is some breakdown and audit of the figures, because as they are they are hard to interpret. "Hate crimes" depend pretty much on the perception of the complainant, and the police are obliged to record them as such whatever, so the figures really only show a trend in complaints to police, not necessarily a trend in "hate crime".
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:

> The article seems to insinuate Brexit itself is the cause. Which, even as a remoaner, I find a little unfair as it somewhat implies voting Brexit makes you an instigator of racism.

I don't think it's the cause, public mood towards immigerants has shifted over the past five years.
Plenty of studies showing it very clearly.


> It's quite possible the real cause in the rise is anything from altered statistical collection to an increase in the propensity for people to want to report race-hate as a result of Brexit (i.e. those fvckers voting for Brexit implicitly said they dislike me, so next time I'm on the end of any perceived abuse from someone who sounds like a Brexiteer I'm going to the police about it).

Frankly this is just bullshit. There is no evidence to suggest that suddenly immigrants started reporting fake hate crimes to the police. In fact that theory is easily dismissed as soon as you look at the geographic breakdown.

> I suspect its a combination of many factors. But I'm skeptical the dramatic increase in reports in 12 months is a result of an increase in individuals actually hating other races or foreigners, or that this was caused by Brexit. In fact, it seems to me to be quite inflammatory, divisive and counter-productive for a newspaper to insinuate such things if potentially incorrect.

You're in denial. The statistics show clearly a steady increase for the past five years, with a spike after brexit. This is really not surprising given the hate campaign that was peddled.

What I came to realise is that there was, despite the appearances, still a lot of backward racists tw*ts in many parts of this country, and and although they were somehow shut up by a politically correct media and politicians over the years, they felt more and more able to speak out. We've seen the same phenomenon in the US.

2
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> I haven't asserted any explanation for the figures nor suggested why there is a rise. You are simply attributing to me things that I've not said -- as I said, your obnoxious attitude is noted.

> All I've asked for is some breakdown and audit of the figures, because as they are they are hard to interpret. "Hate crimes" depend pretty much on the perception of the complainant, and the police are obliged to record them as such whatever, so the figures really only show a trend in complaints to police, not necessarily a trend in "hate crime".

No, you did not. You just implied this was due to fake reports.
But yes, I see, so the hate crimes are due to the complainants perception... have you ever been victim of racist or anti immigrant abuse ? Do you know how it feels ? It feels crap. And the vast majority dont report it, they just try to forget about it. And it's even more annoying when people tell you you probably made it up.
Post edited at 14:25
2
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Plenty of studies showing it very clearly.

No cites I see.

> There is no evidence to suggest that suddenly immigrants started reporting fake hate crimes ...

You don't seem to realise that if 20% of hate crimes used to be reported and then that changed to 30%, then you can get a big increase -- indeed a 50% increase -- in hate-crime *statistics* without any change in the actual rate.

> The statistics show clearly a steady increase for the past five years, with a spike after brexit.

No cites I see.
1
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, you did not. You just implied this was due to fake reports. ...

No I did not. I just asked for proper account of the stats. For example, how many of these "hate crimes" are merely online, someone encountering something they didn't like on twitter? (Which is very, very different from being assaulted in the street.)

> And the vast majority dont report it, ...

Ah, so even Rom the Obnoxious can see big problems with the statistics. Well, if the vast majority don't report, see if you can figure out how a change in a the *reporting* rate alone might lead to a change in the stats. (Hint, I just explained it in my last comment.)
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> No cites I see.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/CMCP/UK-media-coverage-of-the-2016-EU-Referendum-campaig...

> You don't seem to realise that if 20% of hate crimes used to be reported and then that changed to 30%, then you can get a big increase -- indeed a 50% increase -- in hate-crime *statistics* without any change in the actual rate.

Did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, if more hate crimes are reported that is simply because there are more to be reported ? That seem a far more likely explanation than saying that after brexit suddenly immigrants started reporting hate crimes more only in some specific parts of the country.

> No cites I see.

This is in the article cited in the OP. Apparently you've not even bothered reading it...
Post edited at 15:08
1
jkarran - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Ah, so even Rom the Obnoxious can see big problems with the statistics. Well, if the vast majority don't report, see if you can figure out how a change in a the *reporting* rate alone might lead to a change in the stats. (Hint, I just explained it in my last comment.)

So If I have this straight you believe the brexit vote has changed the rate of reporting of hate crime? To me that would seem a rather odd conclusion to draw. Or perhaps you're just playing devil's advocate. By what mechanism do you propose the referendum and or campaign significantly changed the rate of reporting of hate crimes and why might you believe it unlikely to have changed the rate of occurrence? From where I'm sat this looks like grasping at straws, the thing is I don't understand why you'd bother, the campaign was dirty and divisive with more that a whiff of xenophobia about it but it wasn't your work, whichever way you voted. You don't have to defend the campaign or the bellends who took it as a green light to vent their bile on minorities in the aftermath.
jk
1
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, but what makes you think that That the increased is due to increased reporting ?

I have made no claim about what has led to this increase, That's why I'm asking for a proper *study* of this sort of statistic! Just reporting raw stats is naive,
1
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> I have made no claim about what has led to this increase, That's why I'm asking for a proper *study* of this sort of statistic! Just reporting raw stats is naive,

As far as I can tell these are properly collected using bog standard well established methods. It seems to me you've just not bothered reading it.
Yes there is no doubt that increased awareness on hate crime would, over the years, increase the willingness of victims to report it, but it clearly cannot explain these huge spikes.
Post edited at 15:18
2
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> So If I have this straight you believe the brexit vote has changed the rate of reporting of hate crime?

Nope, for the nth time, I'm not making any claim about these stats. I'd like a proper study, which would involve an independent audit (I'm dubious about stats just based on complainant's perception), a breakdown of what crimes we're talking about (how many of them are just online, as opposed to anything substantial?), how many of them led to prosecutions and convictions, and some assessment of rates of reporting and trends in rates of reporting, etc.

Further, how do we know that any changes are as a result of the brexit vote? There are lots of other things happening also (for example terrorist attacks).

Really, all I'm saying is that people are being naive in taking such stats at face value, and in simplistically linking them to the brexit vote.

And once again, it is others claiming that they know what these stats portend, not me.
1
john arran - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

If it's doing a damned good job of looking like a duck and sounding like a duck, and we can think of no reason at all why it might not in fact be a duck, let's assume we have no idea what it might be until we've done a detailed study ;-)
2
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> As far as I can tell these are properly collected using bog standard well established methods.

Look, if something like autism shows a marked increase in occurrence, it is sensible and proper to ask whether that is a *real* increase, or whether it is a trend in likelihood to diagnose.

Anyone with a brain assesses the reliability of stats, and considers the various possibilities. You are taking a very naive and simplistic interpretation of them, and sneering at anyone attempting a better analysis.
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Nope, for the nth time, I'm not making any claim about these stats. I'd like a proper study.

Maybe you should just bother reading the actual reports then ?

2
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Look, if something like autism shows a marked increase in occurrence, it is sensible and proper to ask whether that is a *real* increase, or whether it is a trend in likelihood to diagnose.

> Anyone with a brain assesses the reliability of stats, and considers the various possibilities. You are taking a very naive and simplistic interpretation of them, and sneering at anyone attempting a better analysis.

Because you think you're the only one who thought about this ? Read the bleeding reports ! You don't even seem to understand that the data is being collected and correlated in different ways, all of this is well covered ! Of course increase in willingness to report hate crimes will affect the stats, but this is well accounted for, and doesn't not explain the bulk of the increase nor the spikes, which btw seem to occur not only after brexit but after each terrorist attack as well.
Post edited at 15:37
1
baron - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to jkarran:
I meet plenty of nice people.
But too often they are willing to display their dislike of different, races, religions and colour.
I don't go looking for these people, they seem to be in many places.
Ignoring this simply papers over the cracks and points to the fact that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.
Racism doesn't appear to be socially unacceptable in many parts of the country.
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Of course increase in willingness to report hate crimes will affect the stats, but this is well accounted for, ...

Really? Where and how is this accounted for in the OP or in similar assessments?
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Really? Where and how is this accounted for in the OP or in similar assessments?

By the simple fact that the rise in reported racially motivated incident seems to have correlated with other measures of actual hate crimes committed. Read the article. Or better simply read the actual governement report...

Or you can keep burying your head in the sand and pretend all is well, of course.

What I can tell for myself, through my own personal experience and simply reports from family and friends, is that the atmosphere for foreigners in the UK has become increasingly hostile during the past five years with an clear increase of tension during the brexit vote.
Post edited at 15:57
1
jkarran - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

> I meet plenty of nice people.
> But too often they are willing to display their dislike of different, races, religions and colour.

Those aren't nice people in my book.

> Ignoring this simply papers over the cracks and points to the fact that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.

It helps stop these views finding voice, from impacting directly and harmfully on vulnerable people. It stops others with less virulent views becoming emboldened to harden theirs, express them and infect another generation with their bigotry. In a very real sense it does 'make it go away', not perfectly, not instantly but effectively.

> Racism doesn't appear to be socially unacceptable in many parts of the country.

I agree but that's a good reason to double down on making it so, not to just shrug and say 'that's the way it is'.
jk
Coel Hellier - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> By the simple fact that the rise in reported racially motivated incident seems to have correlated with other measures of actual hate crimes committed.

Which other measures of actual hate crimes committed?

> Or better simply read the actual governement report...

Which report?

Note, by the way, from the OP, the police saying: "We remain committed to helping people feel safe and secure as they go about their lives, so more officers have been deployed on visible patrol routes and forces continue to reach out to all communities to provide reassurance, strengthen our bonds and deal with tensions."

This is common following incidents such as terrorist attacks. So policemen make an effort to be visible in the relevant communities and deliberately go and talk to them about "hate crime". Isn't it likely that that alone leads to the police recording more such incidents? After all, you yourself accept that the fraction that are reported is low; if a policeman comes round and talks to your community, you might well recount to them incidents that you might not have otherwise.

Which is why, as I've said, just interpreting raw stats like those in the OP is very simplistic.
1
baron - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I do wonder how some people who are 'nice' in most other ways can hold racist views.
I use the word 'some' as nobody, including me, has a clue as to how many people in the UK fit my description. I'm guessing, from only my personal experience that it's a sizeable number.
I do think that racial prejudice has been deep rooted in many parts of British society and the recent rise in hate crime simply serve to show the scale of the problem.
Maybe racism, as distasteful as it is, is part of the human condition.
off-duty - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

This is brought up repeatedly. (From my recollection often by you ;-) )

The only thing that these figures can tell you is that there is a rise in REPORTS of hate crime.

This can be caused by many things, including a rise in actual occurrence of hate crime.

Other explanations off the top of my head, in no particular order -

1)Forces have vastly improved their recording of all crime as they try to adhere to the National Crime Recording Standards, since compliance with these standards is now routinely used as a stick to beat us with. This naturally includes improved recording of hate crime.

2)Repeated drives to improve the general recording of hate crime specifically. These are often driven nationally following any large scale incident perceived to increase community tension, but occur locally fairly regularly as well.

3)The dates of these figures appear to include at least two terrorist attacks. These always result in spikes of reports hate crime. This will naturally increase the figures.

4)After every incident perceived to potentially increase community tension there are extensive efforts to engage with minority communities and more visible policing in these communities. This included Brexit.
More visibility of cops amongst minority communities, particularly amongst gatherings of worried/concerned members of those communities = more opportunities to report crime, particularly when that engagement is focussed on "Please report your concerns".

1
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:
> I do wonder how some people who are 'nice' in most other ways can hold racist views.

> I use the word 'some' as nobody, including me, has a clue as to how many people in the UK fit my description. I'm guessing, from only my personal experience that it's a sizeable number.

> I do think that racial prejudice has been deep rooted in many parts of British society and the recent rise in hate crime simply serve to show the scale of the problem.

> Maybe racism, as distasteful as it is, is part of the human condition.

Well in fact it is scientifically proven that our human brains are hardwired to not feel as much empathy towards people of different origins, and that is valid even for people who do not express racist or xenophobic views. Basically they've put people in MRIs and watched their brain response as they were shown picture of people of various ethnicities being inflicted pain. Interesting experiment.
The only remedy to that it seems, and again that's according to science, is growing up from a young age in a multicultural, multi-ethnic environment.

Post edited at 18:54
4
off-duty - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well in fact it is scientifically proven that our human brains are hardwired to not feel as much empathy towards people of different origins, and that is valid even for people who do not express racist or xenophobic views. Basically they've put people in MRIs and watched their brain response as they were shown picture of people of various ethnicities being inflicted pain. Interesting experiment.

> The only remedy to that it seems, and again that's according to science, is growing up from a young age in a multicultural, multi-ethnic environment.

I've seen some work on MRI scanning / neuroscience and racism but a)I'm not aware of the experiment you are quoting and b)I haven't seen conclusions of this type of work that are as bluntly or clearly= "no empathy towards people of different origins"
duchessofmalfi - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
"in fact it is scientifically proven" -> you need to understand a little bit more about the words "science" and "proven"!

I suspect you mean there is a paper published that observed something and you've interpreted that through Daily Mail googles...
Post edited at 19:08
1
captain paranoia - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to duchessofmalfi:

> I suspect you mean there is a paper published that observed something and you've interpreted that through Daily Mail googles...

I very much doubt that Rom wears Daily Mail goggles...
duchessofmalfi - on 10 Jul 2017

Maybe they slipped on just this once?
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to duchessofmalfi:
> "in fact it is scientifically proven" -> you need to understand a little bit more about the words "science" and "proven"!

Well if you want to be pedantic on the concept of scientific prof, let's say that there is ovewhelmimg scientific evidence, based on empirical findings, supporting this. That's enough for our purposes here I think.
Post edited at 21:09
4
john arran - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well in fact it is scientifically proven that our human brains are hardwired to not feel as much empathy towards people of different origins, and that is valid even for people who do not express racist or xenophobic views. Basically they've put people in MRIs and watched their brain response as they were shown picture of people of various ethnicities being inflicted pain. Interesting experiment.

Seeing our 4-year old daughter's response to other children of different ethnicities, it is very hard to believe that anything is really hard-wired. She completely fails to see any difference. That must come later, once children have become indoctrinated into the subtle nuances of the 'isms' which happen to be common in their particular societies.
RomTheBear on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to off-duty:
> I've seen some work on MRI scanning / neuroscience and racism but a)I'm not aware of the experiment you are quoting and b)I haven't seen conclusions of this type of work that are as bluntly or clearly= "no empathy towards people of different origins"

Which is not what I said. But it's been shown well before MRI were even a thing that on the aggregate human beings tend to not empathise as much with groups of different ethno-cultural make up than theirs.
This BTW seem rather obvious on an evolutionary point of view but also happens to be well researched and documented. This not controversial really.
Post edited at 21:15
2
off-duty - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Which is not what I said. But it's been shown well before MRI were even a thing that on the aggregate human beings tend to not empathise as much with groups of different ethno-cultural make up than theirs.

Which part isn't what you stated - the experiment as you describe it has actually occurred?
Or the conclusion that "it is scientifically proven that our human brains are hardwired to not feel as much empathy towards people of different origins" is an actual scientific conclusion as a result of an experiment?

> This BTW seem rather obvious on an evolutionary point of view but also happens to be well researched and documented. This not controversial really.

Aaah. So steering away from "scientific proof" that there is hardwired racism, towards a more sociological conclusion that "groups of a feather flock together".
Which is a different matter entirely - nature/nurture etc etc...
simon c on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Have you pondered whether there is also an uprise in people displaying solidarity against hate attacks and displaying their distaste, anger and intervention against such attacks?
Crewey-Rob on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> This BTW seem rather obvious on an evolutionary point of view

I'd say the opposite is true! The genetic makeup of an individual is healthier (richer) if you have parents from diverse backgrounds. As an example of this look at how healthy mongrel dogs are in comparison to pedigree breeds (and their associated health problems). It is in the interest of a species to mix it up. Taking exception to someone because of their race is therefore a learnt behaviour that flies in the face of nature. Your point is controversial, more than that, it is divisive, unpalatable and wrong on factual and moral levels.
Big Ger - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It's funny this need to excuse anything as Virtue signalling. Firstly I don't see what bad about "virtue" anyway, secondly you have no evidence for that.

That's why I asked the question.

> Did it occur to you that what you see as "virtue signalling" maybe simply people defending their rights ?

When I see a "Black lives matter" protest, consisting of 90% white people, I have to wonder what rights they are protecting? The right to virtue signal perhaps?

6
Big Ger - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> None of those things have increased noticeably in the past 12 months yet the article says that religious and hate crime has increased by 23% in the past 12 months compared with a 0.4% decrease in 2011/2012.

Your evidence?
1
Ridge - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

> I'd say the opposite is true! The genetic makeup of an individual is healthier (richer) if you have parents from diverse backgrounds. As an example of this look at how healthy mongrel dogs are in comparison to pedigree breeds (and their associated health problems). It is in the interest of a species to mix it up. Taking exception to someone because of their race is therefore a learnt behaviour that flies in the face of nature. Your point is controversial, more than that, it is divisive, unpalatable and wrong on factual and moral levels.

Given the experiences of Australian Aborigines, Native Americans and a host of other cultures and civilisations, fear of other ethnic groups is very much a good survival mechanism for individuals of a species.

You could take the long term view that being exterminated, so long as some mixing of genes occurs in the process, is for the greater good of the species as a whole. However that's not going to be a popular viewpoint in the short term.
captain paranoia - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> When I see a "Black lives matter" protest, consisting of 90% white people, I have to wonder what rights they are protecting

Maybe, just maybe, they see the injustice that black lives are subjected to, and feel it's something worth protesting about; a worthwhile cause to fight for.

In the same way as men supported women's rights, or straight people supported gay rights, or any of the other campaigns that people get involved in, without any prospect of personal improvement, and no thought of 'virtue signalling'.

I find it odd that you seem to think people should only be entirely self-interested.
Post edited at 23:34
L OldStan - on 10 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:



This claims to be a study carried out by Harvard over a number of years. Make of it what you will but it implies that we are no worse than many European countries and in most cases, considerably more tolerant.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/03/this-map-shows-the-most-racist-countries-in-europe-and-how-britain-ran...

If I can track down the actual study, I'll post the link.
RomTheBear on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Crewey-Rob:
> I'd say the opposite is true! The genetic makeup of an individual is healthier (richer) if you have parents from diverse backgrounds. As an example of this look at how healthy mongrel dogs are in comparison to pedigree breeds (and their associated health problems). It is in the interest of a species to mix it up. Taking exception to someone because of their race is therefore a learnt behaviour that flies in the face of nature. Your point is controversial, more than that, it is divisive, unpalatable and wrong on factual and moral levels.

What you say is true, it'sbeen shown that humans are more sexually attracted to mates that have different genes, because, as you say, it's good for the gene pools.
This is no way incompatible with the simple fact that we have also evolved a stronger form of empathy for those of the same ethno-cultural background as us.
As you may have noticed evolution often produces strange and contradictory results.

I don't see why you think it's divise, on the contrary, it's pretty useful to recognise that us humans have a predisposition to xenophobia and racism (some of us more than others), and it's pretty useful as well to know that we can do something against it. As again the science shows, it's all about being exposed to a large variety of cultures and ethnicity during development.
Post edited at 01:19
1
RomTheBear on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> That's why I asked the question.

> When I see a "Black lives matter" protest, consisting of 90% white people, I have to wonder what rights they are protecting? The right to virtue signal perhaps?

Why does the colour of their skin matter ? Do you need to be black to defend the rights of black people now ? I do understand that this concept may seem strange to you, but people get engaged in all sorts of causes, even causes that concern other ethnic groups.
I think you're virtue-signal signaling.
Post edited at 01:21
1
Big Ger - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I find it odd that you seem to think people should only be entirely self-interested.

I don't think that people are entirely self interested, in the same way that I'm sure you do not think that every white person who attends a "black Lives matter" protest, such as closing down the road into Heathrow, , is entirely altruistic.

5
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel:

You're wanting rigorous and independent analysis of these statistics, as you're sceptical of the basis for categorisation of these crimes.

We have a system for that, it's called criminal prosecution.

The CPS is very clear in its latest report, linked below - conviction rates have risen in all strands of hate crime. If a jury's decision is not rigorous and independent enough for you, I don't know what will be.

'In 2015/16, we completed 15,442 hate crime prosecutions - the highest number ever.'

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/cps_hate_crime_report_2016.pdf

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/more_hate_crimes_prosecuted_by_the_crown_prosecution_service_...
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
baron - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
While conviction rates have indeed risen the rise is very small indeed.
Given that the CPS will only prosecute cases where they think that they have a good chance of winning it's a negligible increase.
Unless it's hate crime against the disabled but that's a whole new thread.
Post edited at 08:21
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> The CPS is very clear in its latest report, linked below - conviction rates have risen in all strands of hate crime.

Your links report a 1.9% increase in racially and religiously aggravated hate crime.

That's not in line with the "soared at an unprecedented rate" language of the OP (though it's not the same time period).

> If a jury's decision is not rigorous and independent enough for you, I don't know what will be.

Why the sarcastic and tendentious wording, given that your links do not refute anything I've said?
2
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Your links report a 1.9% increase in racially and religiously aggravated hate crime. That's not in line with the "soared at an unprecedented rate" language of the OP (though it's not the same time period).

Oh. So in fact now your issue is with the wording of the OP. Well, I'm responding to your being 'dubious' about the figures and what they mean. You want a 'sensible breakdown and assessment of how reliable they are.' On an individual basis, case by case, the CPS and courts make this assessment, I don't know what better metric you could find.

> Why the sarcastic and tendentious wording, given that your links do not refute anything I've said?

Because you're chasing cheap points, Coel. Hate crime is on the rise, as clearly evidenced by an increase in reporting and - crucially - conviction rates. The criminal justice system we have is one of the best in the world. If you truly think it's so flawed as to get a major issue such as this wrong, maybe you can propose an academic study to check its work. The point is not tendentious, because the courts are the established authority on criminal law.

A 2% increase is highly significant as you well know. And particularly so given that convictions will be the tip of the iceberg. Again you will know this.
Post edited at 08:47
2
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

And as to the language used, the CPS is very clear about this:

'the highest number ever.'

Not

'it went up a bit.'

The statement is in the foreword of a considered and sober document reflecting the state of the nation. It's not a sensationalist newspaper article: it's the real thing. It's not offering a comment on the social factors which have contributed to this rise, as that is not their job. Their job is to prosecute individual cases, and tell the Government and the public what is happening statistically.

In their opening line, the report notes:

'Hate crime creates fear and has a devastating impact on individuals and communities.'

It's not some silly semantic debate. It has genuine effects on people. On kids growing up in our country.
2
jkarran - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> When I see a "Black lives matter" protest, consisting of 90% white people, I have to wonder what rights they are protecting? The right to virtue signal perhaps?

The rights of black people to not be killed consequence free by trigger happy cops in routine traffic stops, not to be dragged from cars and beaten to death with sticks or shot in the back by gun toting neighborhood watch types for the crime of being black at night perhaps? Why on earth does one have to be black to think black people deserve to be treated decently, to be afforded their rights under the law!
jk
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> Because you're chasing cheap points, Coel. Hate crime is on the rise, as clearly evidenced by an increase in reporting and - crucially - conviction rates.

According to the report you linked to, regarding racially and religiously aggravated hate crimes:

The rate of prosecutions increased by 1.9%.
The conviction rate increased by the small margin from 83.5% to 83.8%.

Those are relatively small increases. The do not support the talk of "soaring" crime rates in the OP.

> The criminal justice system we have is one of the best in the world. If you truly think it's so flawed as to get a major issue such as this wrong,

You don't seem to have realised that my earlier questioning was about mere **reporting** of claimed hate crimes to the police. It was **those** figures that I was dubious about.

Indeed, if you care to look up-thread it was *me* who suggested that we should compare those mere-reports data to actual convictions!
baron - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
According to the CPS pdf
the police reported 12997 cases to the CPS.
But there were 15442 prosecutions.
I thought that the CPS only prosecuted cases brought t them by the police.
So why is there a discrepancy in these figures or is it just my minimal understanding of how the law works ?
This isn't me having a gomat you personaly but you've obviously read the report and I'm hoping that you might be able to explain the numbers to me.
Post edited at 09:22
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You're being pompous now. Stop trying to defend a poor position.

A 2% rise in convictions is highly significant (again you understand this) and absolutely points toward an emerging problem.

- hate crime is generally under-reported
- many reported cases are not referred to the CPS
- sometimes guilty people get away with their crimes
- the data is not yet available for conviction rates in hate crime pre and post-Brexit (but reporting rates are, as per OP)

One would have to be pretty f*cking blinkered to not understand that there is an issue here, and your repeated call to scepticism on this in the face of quality evidence to the contrary, is looking more and more like an entrenched position.
1
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to baron:

It's almost certainly the effect of latency. Many of the reported crimes will not have been actioned for prosecution or taken to trial within the reporting period.

Likewise the conviction rates will suffer the reverse latency, with many of the original complaints referred by the police in the previous year.
baron - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

Thanks
Xharlie on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why does the colour of their skin matter ?

That's really the crux of the matter, though, isn't it?

As long as people continue to draw a line between "white" and "black", "us" and "them", in any way, racism will never be a thing of the past.

The racism debate is completely derailed by trivial topics such as use of the N-word and the world's solution to being "not racist" is to cast a black person as a token character in a Star Wars movie but all of this is appallingly superficial. The real problem is never even approached: the us-and-them attitude that prevails and is demonstrated so aptly in Big Ger's post.
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> You're being pompous now. Stop trying to defend a poor position.

All I've asked for on this thread is proper analysis of the figures, so what we know what they actually mean.

> A 2% rise in convictions is highly significant ...

A 2% rise is vastly less than the 23% rise and talk of "soaring" in the OP. Please could you try to understand that my comments up-thread were about the claimed 23% "soaring". And all I asked for was proper analysis of them.

> One would have to be pretty f*cking blinkered to not understand that there is an issue here, ...

Is there an issue regarding hate crime? Why of course there is! Where have I ever said different? It is precisely because it is an important issue that we need to be clear about what the evidence actually is!

> ... and your repeated call to scepticism on this in the face of quality evidence to the contrary, is looking more and more like an entrenched position.

Please, please, please -- please could you try very, very hard to understand that my skepticism was about the claimed 23% "soaring", not about the CPS stats showing a 1.9% rise. [You do see the difference between a 1.9% rise and a 23% rise, I take it?]

Indeed it was *me* who first asked how the numbers in the OP compare to actual prosecutions.
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Staying with the figures, you poo-poo a significant, but latent increase in conviction rates in hate crimes of 2% despite a number of salient points highlighting the relevance of this. And you seem to utterly disregard the massive, massive increase in hate crime recorded following Brexit. From the Home Office:

'There is an increase in these offences recorded in June 2016, followed by an even sharper increase in July 2016. The number of aggravated offences recorded then declined in August, but remained at a higher level than prior to the EU Referendum. These increases fit the widely reported pattern of an increase in hate crime following the EU referendum.'

My bold. Annex A, p18.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/559319/hate-crime-1516-hos...

This is about as good as the data gets. So what would you propose, Coel. You're convinced the stats are dodgy, so let's just do nothing, yeah? Nothing to see here, carry on.
Post edited at 09:47
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Please, please, please -- please could you try very, very hard to understand that my skepticism was about the claimed 23% "soaring", not about the CPS stats showing a 1.9% rise. [You do see the difference between a 1.9% rise and a 23% rise, I take it?]



You do see the difference between latest figures showing reporting of crime, versus last year's figures showing conviction rates for such crimes, yes? Has someone hacked your f*cking account?

> Indeed it was *me* who first asked how the numbers in the OP compare to actual prosecutions.

Jesus wept. Coel you're not the only person capable of taking such a leap of imagination. I didn't read your post, despite your childish insistence that it was all your idea. But if you want the credit, f*ck's sake, ok.
Post edited at 09:51
1
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> But if you want the credit, f*ck's sake, ok.

It's not that I want the credit for the idea, it's to point out that asking for *solid* data (convictions) not just reports to police is exactly what I've been doing all thread.

To recap:

1) OP posts link about "soaring" 23% increase in hate crime.

2) I say that I'm dubious about such stats and want a proper analysis and audit of them.

3) You post link with hard evidence of convictions, showing only a 1.9% increase.

4) You then claim that this somehow refutes what I've been saying.

Hint: it doesn't.

5) You then try to rescue your position by implying that I've been sceptical about the 1.9% increase in convictions and the quality of *that* data.

Hint: I haven't, I've been sceptical about the quality of the data in the OP's link.
2
RomTheBear on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Hint: I haven't, I've been sceptical about the quality of the data in the OP's link.

No, you've just not been bothered reading the source of the data in the OP's link. Essentially your problem is just laziness it seems.
5
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, you've just not been bothered reading the source of the data in the OP's link.

The source of the data is FOI requests. There is no link to any source of this information to read further.

> Essentially your problem is just laziness it seems.

I note again your general obnoxiousness to cover for your lack of substance.
1
Cary Grant on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't usually post to forum discussion, but as data analysis is 'my thing', I thought I'd put a few things out there that may make the data a little clearer. Firstly we can agree or disagree that self reporting (self perception as stated in http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_definitions_-_v3_0.pdf the principle definition source for HM stats) may skew the figures and unless we have some related measure by which to track this we can argue the toss all day. But it is relatively easy to find a moderator as criminal activity is first reported and then, if possible, it will be prosecuted. At the point of prosecution it is no longer sufficient to 'perceive' a racial, religious, gender or homo/transphobic motivation for a crime, it must be provable and from the point of view of the CPS, it must be prosecutable (it's not really a word, but it is here and now a new word) within the terms of the offence.
So the simple question then will be, to what extent does the reporting of hate crimes track prosecution? According to data from 2016 it would appear to be the case that there is a rise in hate crimes at the point of conviction:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/more_hate_crimes_prosecuted_by_the_crown_prosecution_service_...
We might want to say that the CPS is now prosecuting crimes that may only be assault, affray or plain obnoxiousness under the catchall of 'hate crimes', but we would expect to see a lot of these cases failing in the courts and the CPS cannot afford to do that. Given that we can put aside self perception as a sole marker of an increase the evidence would seem to bear out the original assertion that there is a rise in hate crimes.
We can also dismiss, at least to a certain extent, changes in law that make the reporting of such crimes viable - where we might expect to see a sharp increase followed by a steadying trend - as is usually the case in clinical practice. If we saw a year on upward trend in autism (we do not, though the profile of condition is raised so many people assume that more people are presenting as autistic). If we saw a sharp upward trend in both self perception and diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders we would rightly be looking for causal factors.
If reporting tracks prosecution, I would be inclined to say that we are looking at a genuine, and worrying, shift in public attitudes.
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Cary Grant:

I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said, but just to note that the report you link to is the same one from the CPS, reporting a 1.9% increase in prosecutions for racially and religiously motivated hate crimes.
1
David Martin - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Cary Grant:

> If reporting tracks prosecution, I would be inclined to say that we are looking at a genuine, and worrying, shift in public attitudes.

Wouldn't a 1.9% increase be fairly expected in the context of a series of terrorist attacks? And there be a high likelihood it will subside if and when these stop?

A large number of people have been quite brutally killed in the streets or at music events, with those responsible claiming a direct affiliation and guidance from a religion that is prominently and visibly shared by another 2.5 million people in the UK. As unfortunate as it is to say, in the circumstances, 1.9% strikes me as remarkably low considering the potential backlash that could have occurred. Certainly seems a stretch to blame Brexit anyway.

1
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to David Martin:

It's not just Muslims who have been victims of hate crime, is it.

And while everyone is trying to downplay a 'remarkably low' 1.9% increase in convictions, the Crown Prosecution Service is taking it very seriously. Again, so that it's clear, they mention in the foreword to their report that this is

'...the highest number ever.'

They're not mincing their words here. And again, let's face the reality:

- hate crime is generally under-reported
- many reported cases are not referred to the CPS
- sometimes guilty people get away with their crimes
- the data is not yet available for conviction rates in hate crime pre and post-Brexit (but reporting rates are, as per OP)
- a 23% increase in reported hate crimes in the 11 months following Brexit.

This is not a f*cking hiccup in the stats, folks, wake up.
4
Bob Hughes - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Your evidence?

well there isn't any really. But it seems hard to justify the statement that any of the below have significantlly increased in the past year compared to previous years

> a) The seeming ever expanding nature of what now constitutes "racism".
> b) The need for some, who are in general unaffected by racism, to virtue signal, by flagging up on social media any perceived "racism".

These may be growing (very dependent on your point of view but lets assume they are growing) - but have they really increased much more in 2016 - 2017 than in previous years?

> c) The search for sensationalism on the part of the press.

I don't even think this is growing. Press sensationalism is pretty much a constant isn't it? Perhaps you could argue that chasing clicks has made the press more sensationalist but even that isn't something that only happened last year.
RomTheBear on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> The source of the data is FOI requests. There is no link to any source of this information to read further.

You know something called google ? Took me 30s to find the FOI requests and the sources for the hate crimes reported in the article on the gov website. Has methodology and everything.

> I note again your general obnoxiousness to cover for your lack of substance.

Sorry mate, but if you can't bother doing the bare ass minimum research needed to even have a very basic grasp of the topic (a 30s google search and 20 min read max), I'm not sure what's the point of posting here.
Post edited at 18:12
4
David Martin - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> It's not just Muslims who have been victims of hate crime, is it.

Indeed. It seems LGBTQIs and the disabled make up an equal share. You think Brexit has caused them to be hated on too?

> '...the highest number ever.'

Indeed also. But even if the rate remained unchanged, it would likely be the highest ever year on year due to population growth.

Here's a load of other alarming correlations that deserve equally urgent UKC threads I feel.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Murderous_Crow - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> 1) OP posts link about "soaring" 23% increase in hate crime.

Yes. The reporting data is available. The conviction data post-Brexit is not.

How can you not understand that these convictions either do not yet exist, as the cases will be going through the courts, or have not yet been subject to review and report?

> 2) I say that I'm dubious about such stats and want a proper analysis and audit of them.

To which I point out that we have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world, which despite extensive cuts is doing its damnedest to dispense justice based upon truth.

THE ANALYSIS DOESN'T GET ANY MORE RIGOROUS.

> 3) You post link with hard evidence of convictions, showing only a 1.9% increase.

For goodness' sake. There is and always will be variance between reporting rates and conviction rates. People get raped, burgled, assaulted, even murdered every day and convictions are not achieved for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they can't find the suspect, you understand this yes? Other things happen to derail convictions, accidents of circumstance, which mean that very often justice is not done. This doesn't mean the crime never happened. Sorry to point out such patently obvious facts, but your denial of the truth of this situation is prevaricated on shoddy thinking such as this.

> 4) You then claim that this somehow refutes what I've been saying.

See previous post. It clearly does. As does Mr Grant's expert analysis of the situation, in a fashion far more eloquent and informed than mine. Your reply to this post shows your reluctance or inability to engage meaningfully with the subject. The evidence is highly likely to point to an actual rise in hate crime.

> 5) You then try to rescue your position by implying that I've been sceptical about the 1.9% increase in convictions and the quality of *that* data.

I said no such thing. I said you poo-pood the 1.9% increase in convictions, which means you dismissed the figure lightly, as you just did in your very last post: you said 'only a 1.9% increase'. As Cary points out, conviction rates are extremely likely to follow reporting rates to some degree. And as I keep trying to make you and others understand, the 1.9% increase is based on figures only to the end of 2016, i.e. covering only 6 months following Brexit, and including a period prior to the Referendum being enabled in law!

I'm prepared to bet good money that there's significantly more than a 1.9% rise over the same timescale as the OP, when the conviction data becomes available.




4
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> Oh. So in fact now your issue is with the wording of the OP. Well, I'm responding to your being 'dubious' about the figures and what they mean. You want a 'sensible breakdown and assessment of how reliable they are.' On an individual basis, case by case, the CPS and courts make this assessment, I don't know what better metric you could find.

> Because you're chasing cheap points, Coel. Hate crime is on the rise, as clearly evidenced by an increase in reporting and - crucially - conviction rates. The criminal justice system we have is one of the best in the world. If you truly think it's so flawed as to get a major issue such as this wrong, maybe you can propose an academic study to check its work. The point is not tendentious, because the courts are the established authority on criminal law.

> A 2% increase is highly significant as you well know. And particularly so given that convictions will be the tip of the iceberg. Again you will know this.

The only thing we can say about the reporting stats is that REPORTS of hate crime have risen.

The only thing we can say about the increase in CPS prosecutions is that the CPS have prosecuted more cases. That is hardly surprising, given that more have been reported.
It also may well reflect these crimes being dealt with better by both CPS in deciding to charge, by both CPS and police in ensuring that the "hate motivations" are correctly added to the charge, and by CPS in no longer so happy to drop the "hate" element in a pre-trial plea bargain.

What we can't categorically say is that any of these stats mean that hate crime is up.
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> Yes. The reporting data is available. The conviction data post-Brexit is not.

And note that I had already pointed out that the time periods do not match. But *you* were the one that posted that CPS data as though it refuted that I'd said about the OP's link. You accompanied that with aggressive and sarcastic comments at me. Yet you now seem to be admitting that the link you posted doesn't help you.

> How can you not understand that these convictions either do not yet exist, as the cases will be going through the courts, or have not yet been subject to review and report?

Ah yes, more sarcastic and nasty wording: "How can you not understand that ...". Excuse me, but *you* were the one who posted a link to that data and made claims about it.

> To which I point out that we have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world, which despite extensive cuts is doing its damnedest to dispense justice based upon truth.

And for the sixth time, I've not quibbled with any of the court-based data, have I? Please, please try to accept that my skepticism related to the OP's complaint-based data, not any court-based data.

> Other things happen to derail convictions, accidents of circumstance, which mean that very often justice is not done. This doesn't mean the crime never happened.

Did I ever say it did? Your complaints seem to bear little resemblance to anything I've actually said.

> Sorry to point out such patently obvious facts, but your denial of the truth of this situation is prevaricated on shoddy thinking such as this.

"Denial of the truth of this ..." You're just getting nastier aren't you? My central point is this: there is reason to be skeptical about the stats in the OP; that's more or less my only point. It is a valid point despite your bluster.

> I said you poo-pood the 1.9% increase in convictions, which means you dismissed the figure lightly, ...

Not at all. All I've said is that a 1.9% increase is a lot less than the 23% increase in the OP. ***You*** posted the link to the 1.9% increase as though it supported the claimed increase in the OP. I've just pointed out that it doesn't.

> And as I keep trying to make you and others understand, the 1.9% increase is based on figures only to the end of 2016, i.e. covering only 6 months following Brexit, and including a period prior to the Referendum being enabled in law!

More tendentious wording: "And as I keep trying to make you and others understand, ...". Now, tell me, in which comment did you previously make that point?

Well, let's see, *I* had previously made that point, hadn't I? In my very first reply about that link I said: "Your links report a 1.9% increase in racially and religiously aggravated hate crime. That's not in line with the "soared at an unprecedented rate" language of the OP (though it's not the same time period)."

Note that end phrase: "though it's not the same time period"? Just maybe I do understand that it's not the same time period!
1
off-duty - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Cary Grant:

> I don't usually post to forum discussion, but as data analysis is 'my thing', I thought I'd put a few things out there that may make the data a little clearer. Firstly we can agree or disagree that self reporting (self perception as stated in http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_definitions_-_v3_0.pdf the principle definition source for HM stats) may skew the figures and unless we have some related measure by which to track this we can argue the toss all day. But it is relatively easy to find a moderator as criminal activity is first reported and then, if possible, it will be prosecuted. At the point of prosecution it is no longer sufficient to 'perceive' a racial, religious, gender or homo/transphobic motivation for a crime, it must be provable and from the point of view of the CPS, it must be prosecutable (it's not really a word, but it is here and now a new word) within the terms of the offence.

> So the simple question then will be, to what extent does the reporting of hate crimes track prosecution? According to data from 2016 it would appear to be the case that there is a rise in hate crimes at the point of conviction:


> We might want to say that the CPS is now prosecuting crimes that may only be assault, affray or plain obnoxiousness under the catchall of 'hate crimes', but we would expect to see a lot of these cases failing in the courts and the CPS cannot afford to do that. Given that we can put aside self perception as a sole marker of an increase the evidence would seem to bear out the original assertion that there is a rise in hate crimes.

> We can also dismiss, at least to a certain extent, changes in law that make the reporting of such crimes viable - where we might expect to see a sharp increase followed by a steadying trend - as is usually the case in clinical practice. If we saw a year on upward trend in autism (we do not, though the profile of condition is raised so many people assume that more people are presenting as autistic). If we saw a sharp upward trend in both self perception and diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders we would rightly be looking for causal factors.

> If reporting tracks prosecution, I would be inclined to say that we are looking at a genuine, and worrying, shift in public attitudes.

Interesting analysis. From my reading of your post, what you appear to be missing is that there may well be a lot of low level, entirely prosecutable hate crime that is occurring daily.

This is unfortunately largely unreported for a wide variety of reasons.

The rise in reporting of this crime could be due to a rise in the number of crimes occurring, however it could also be due to better community engagement by the police, better publicity for victims to encourage reporting, etc etc.

With a higher level of reporting you would naturally expect to see more cases prosecuted.
Unsurprisingly, that is what is displayed.
off-duty - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

If more crime is reported, more crime will be prosecuted (even by the CPS!!)

Neither of those stats demonstrate that more crime is being committed.
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:

> See previous post. It clearly does. As does Mr Grant's expert analysis of the situation, in a fashion far more eloquent and informed than mine. Your reply to this post shows your reluctance or inability to engage meaningfully with the subject. The evidence is highly likely to point to an actual rise in hate crime.

More aggressive and tendentious wording! So Mr Grant is an "expert" perhaps because you agree with him? Well, I did respond to his post and my response is a good one. Let me spell it out for you.

Cary Grant was arguing that self-reporting stats may be dubious, so we should perhaps concentrate more on *conviction* stats. (And I agree.)

So he then pointed to some stats, saying:

> According to data from 2016 it would appear to be the case that there is a rise in hate crimes at the point of conviction:

And as I said, these stats he pointed to are the very same 1.9% increase that we'd already discussed.

Please explain how this stat refutes anything I said, and please explain what more "engagement" with Grant's post you want. It seems to me entirely in line with everything I've said on this thread.
off-duty - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> The rights of black people to not be killed consequence free by trigger happy cops in routine traffic stops, not to be dragged from cars and beaten to death with sticks or shot in the back by gun toting neighborhood watch types for the crime of being black at night perhaps? Why on earth does one have to be black to think black people deserve to be treated decently, to be afforded their rights under the law!

> jk

All entirely laudable aims. Not quite clear how these lot felt they were furthering them:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/19/nine-black-lives-matter-protesters-guilty-over-heath...

Just a pity theyappear to consider that the "black life" they consider to "matter" appears to be Mark Duggan, rather than PC Wayne Marques.
Cary Grant on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Coel Hellier:

What I was most keen to highlight is whether there is something to moderate the first set of data (reports of hates crime), which there is (prosecutions). If a relationship between the two is accepted then we can see how one tracks and or deviates from the other. Prosecutions, which operate on a different timescale will always need adjusting and the rate of adjustment may not be fully accounted for over a few years. If we want to further moderate the result we can look at other crime stats and see what trends are emerging.
Both datasets are useful together and either dataset is a whole lot less interesting and useful without the other. It was not my intention to say that prosecutions are more reliable indicator, only that it is a useful moderator that helps pick out and understand trends.
I would be very surprised, all other things considered - including non reported events - if there was not a very real upward trend.
As for why a sharp rise in homophobic attacks has also occurred (not something you raised I think), the narrative surrounding the EU referendum and the subsequent vote has been solidly tied to immigration - by both sides, though for obviously different reasons. This is grist to the mill for violent anti-social groups and individuals who (like most of us) seek and find the slimmest of justifications for our behaviours. But that is a whole different set of data.
Coel Hellier - on 11 Jul 2017
In reply to Cary Grant:

> What I was most keen to highlight is whether there is something to moderate the first set of data (reports of hates crime), which there is (prosecutions). If a relationship between the two is accepted then we can see how one tracks and or deviates from the other.

Yes agreed.

> As for why a sharp rise in homophobic attacks has also occurred ...

It's notable that the biggest rise of all is in hate-crime against the disabled. (I'd find it pretty hard to pin that one on Brexit!) I'd guess that the rise is mostly owing to the police, prosecutors and people in general taking such things more seriously.
Darren Jackson - on 12 Jul 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Like this sort of aristocrap?

Aristocrat faces jail after being menacing and racist about Gina Miller

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/11/man-jail-offering-money-run-over-gina-miller-rhodri-...
1
Big Ger - on 12 Jul 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> The rights of black people to not be killed consequence free by trigger happy cops in routine traffic stops, not to be dragged from cars and beaten to death with sticks or shot in the back by gun toting neighborhood watch types for the crime of being black at night perhaps?

This happens a lot at Heathrow, does it?
1
jkarran - on 12 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

So now you've accepted solidarity between people of different colour can exist you want me waste a post explaining solidarity between people of different nations can?

As for Heathrow my one and only experience of it in the last decade as an olive skinned man with a big beard and shaved head was being surrounded by heavily armed police for the crime of having a wash in the bathroom. You might be asking the wrong person about how 'others' are perceived and treated and how it feels to be on the wrong side of those assumptions and prejudices. Thankfully I don't have to put up with that kind of shit every day of my life.
jk
1
Big Ger - on 12 Jul 2017
In reply to jkarran:
> So now you've accepted solidarity between people of different colour can exist you want me waste a post explaining solidarity between people of different nations can?

So now you've made up some slur/nonsense/idiocy about some imagined refusal to believe that "solidarity between people of different colour can exist", why not deal with what I actually post, not the strawmen you cook up?

> As for Heathrow my one and only experience of it in the last decade as an olive skinned man with a big beard and shaved head was being surrounded by heavily armed police for the crime of having a wash in the bathroom.

Really? So, what reason did they give you? Did they talk to you? Or were they only in there for a pee?

> You might be asking the wrong person about how 'others' are perceived and treated and how it feels to be on the wrong side of those assumptions and prejudices.

Ok, I'll go ask a white bloke. You look pretty white in your profile picture BTW.

> Thankfully I don't have to put up with that kind of shit every day of my life.

Me neither.

> jk

GT
Post edited at 09:27
jkarran - on 12 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Really? So, what reason did they give you? Did they talk to you? Or were they only in there for a pee?

One followed me in, four of them with machine guns waited outside the bathroom and surrounded me when I tried to leave. Unsurprisingly they weren't very keen to discuss their concerns with me and I wasn't in much of a position to press the matter.

> Ok, I'll go ask a white bloke. You look pretty white in your profile picture BTW.

You'll have to take my word for it but after a month in Uganda I take on a distinctly Mediterranean hue. My point was not so much the skin tone but I strongly suspect my beard, shaved head and washing lead to me being profiled and IMO treated unreasonably. Like most people stopped and searched for seemingly spurious reasons I obviously cannot prove it but I still experienced it, thankfully only once. You asked about Heathrow, that is my one and only experience of Heathrow as an adult and it was shit!
jk
Post edited at 10:00
1
jkarran - on 12 Jul 2017
In reply to off-duty:

> Just a pity theyappear to consider that the "black life" they consider to "matter" appears to be Mark Duggan, rather than PC Wayne Marques.

Don't (didn't) they both matter?

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make but as I understand it Black Lives Matter isn't an anti-terror campaign, it's campaigning against ongoing poor treatment of black people and unwillingness to take violence against black people seriously by the state and its institutions. Now that may be more relevant in the US than the UK but it is not irrelevant in the UK. Duggan's treatment is rightly or wrongly widely perceived to be an example of this. It's impossible to see how PC Marques's could be.
jk
2
Thrudge on 12 Jul 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
> It's not just Muslims who have been victims of hate crime, is it.

Quite right - the kafirs are getting it worse than anybody. They're having their heads cut off in the streets, they're being butchered with knives, they're being run over with trucks, and they're being bombed and shot and beaten. Have a heart. Won't somebody stand up for the most oppressed and victimised group of all? Who will stand up for the poor kafirs?
Post edited at 11:30
1
Big Ger - on 13 Jul 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> You asked about Heathrow, that is my one and only experience of Heathrow as an adult and it was shit!

Thanks for sharing it, but what I was asking for evidence of was your assertion that Black people are treated this way at Heathrow;

> The rights of black people to not be killed consequence free by trigger happy cops in routine traffic stops, not to be dragged from cars and beaten to death with sticks or shot in the back by gun toting neighborhood watch types for the crime of being black at night perhaps?

necessitating white people protest that "Black live matter" at Heathrow

1
jkarran - on 13 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Thanks for sharing it, but what I was asking for evidence of was your assertion that Black people are treated this way at Heathrow;

I quite clearly didn't make that assertion, nobody did, anyone can check back to see that so why the dishonest representation of my position?

> necessitating white people protest that "Black live matter" at Heathrow

You know that isn't why Heathrow was chosen, it was almost certainly chosen so that even down in Australia their protest cannot but be heard.
jk
2
Timmd on 13 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> How much of this is due to

> a) The seeming ever expanding nature of what now constitutes "racism".

People seem to be focusing on the word racism, but my OP is about rise of incidents of intolerance, the article mentions women in headscarves being targeted too. It's plausibly not just an issue of racism.

> b) The need for some, who are in general unaffected by racism, to virtue signal, by flagging up on social media any perceived "racism".

I'm not affected by racism, but having had brown friends since I was 3, you'll presumably understand if I see it as being a worrying thing worth mentioning? You could call it virtue signalling if you want, or you could call it anger at the thought of what might happen to a very old friend. With you being in another country - I'll ask you to take my word that it's anger. It's up to you. ;-) If you've been on holidays with the same people for most of your life where lots of people rent a climbing hut and that kind of thing, you'd be bound to feel angry and slightly alarmed I would suggest.

> c) The search for sensationalism on the part of the press.

I think the figures can speak for themselves. If incidents have gone up since Brexit, that's something which has happened, and constitutes news. I can understand if the more reasonable of Brexit voters might feel the need to play it down, through not wanting to be tarred with the same brush in any kind of way, but this isn't about politics or Brexit. It's about alarm at what has happened since the Referendum - personally I'd have expected the opposite to happen, though anybody who might be less tolerant than yourself having got what they wanted in us leaving the EU. Remember that my Dad was in favour of Brexit, so I'm hardly going to tar all Brexit voters as being ignorant or bigoted. He didn't like what happened to Greece.
Post edited at 13:18
1
Timmd on 13 Jul 2017
In reply to off-duty:

Thanks for the interesting post.
Timmd on 13 Jul 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I should have written this, 'through' rather than 'though'. ''It's about alarm at what has happened since the Referendum - personally I'd have expected the opposite to happen, through anybody who might be less tolerant than yourself having got what they wanted in us leaving the EU''

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.