• By -








to me, the issue isn't that it's recorded, if the gov wants to keep a copy of every rant made against a person, then fine, but it should never go on someone's DBS. In reading OPs post, my guess that the company can hire him with the insurance etc. but they either, believe that it's a hate crime and not a hate incident and don't know the difference, which would be a common mistake or they know perfectly well that's the case but at the risk of anything happening they won't do it anyways.


File it under the 81N, or possibly the TR45-H departments.


It was a St George’s cross, but yes


The logical conclusion is that OP is unironically, the actual victim of a hate crime as they've likely been stereotyped and harassed as a result of their race, ethnicity and nationality.


The judge from the case mentioned in there even made a point along those lines, that Mrs B was happily taking part in activities that she was otherwise complaining about. To be honest, the whole thing is just chilling...


Indeed they have.


Unfortunately the poor sod who was landed with this pile of shit would have no choice but to record it in accordance with home office counting rules. The problem lies with the home office, not necessarily the police who would be criticised if they failed to record it. The way in which non crimes are recorded (and this includes domestic non crimes) was a small, but not inconsiderable, reason why I left the police.


I mean if the police have to record the calls they get, no matter how bullshit, fine. But if the person isn't being convicted in a court of law or even arrested, let alone not even being notified about this report, it shouldn't be appearing on a fucking DBS check or anywhere outside the police's internal records.


Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately recording of incidents isn't something the police have much of a choice about, and the force that I was in got into a lot of trouble because they failed to record nonsense like this. No one joins the police to entertain the delusions of idiots, but sometimes you don't have a choice.


So we've reached a point where people will have difficulty gaining employment purely because someone was *offended* - fuck my life. Maybe I shouldn't put the dinosaur-eating-a-jesus-fish badge on my car after all.


Not just offended - offended by something which literally no one could find offensive.


I suspect most of /r/uk would find the concept of the george cross offensive! it's British, and it's related to the monarchy both awful, awful things for /r/uk redditors


>dinosaur-eating-a-jesus-fish badge \*tips fedora\*. Awesome badge, fine gentlesir.


I asked for that huh It was a birthday present fucking years ago, probably explains why it's sat in a draw for the past 5+ years instead of actually being stuck on the car. It's [this exact thing](https://i0.wp.com/i.imgur.com/3TScK.jpg) for anyone wondering


https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2094 Gulpo is the best one


"non crime hate incident" This stuff is genuinely terrifying. We are sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare.


That's what the Hitler Dog owner got on his record. Utterly insane. Non criminal conviction I think they called it


We moonwalked into years ago. Dunno why people are surprised now.


Jesus wept, that’s terrifying.


Absolutely bonkers if true.


Likely true, the Harry Miller case was unbelievable.


even if its not today, within 20 years it will be


Non-crime hate incidents are bullshit. The police shouldn't even be involved - a "non-crime hate incident" is basically just "someone said or did something that I don't like"


So this sets a legal precedent that anyone with the St George's flag is a racist. I assume the English football team are now legally racist?


It was a Union Jack according to op.


Perception is _everything_ now. OP should be grateful they didn’t see it as a swastika.


The police comment says the victim believes it was a St George's flag, the police seem to believe the victim. The OP is also a convicted racist, so who should you believe?


> The OP is also a convicted racist no they're not, there's an incident recorded on their file which hasn't been taken any further. REALLY important distinction. Someone made up some shit that the police had to record but decided (rightfully) that no laws have been broken, and it's now on the poor mugs record forever.


>Someone made up some shit that the police had to record but decided (rightfully) that no laws have been broken, and it's now on the poor mugs record forever. The OP is guilty of a hate incident, it is basically a crime where the only punishment is to be branded as a racist on background checks. It is a new form of crime.


> The OP is guilty of a hate incident OP is accused of a hate incident, and it is recorded against his record, and he cannot dispute it in court in a fair manner. In no way is he guilty of anything. An accusation is proof of or an admission of guilt. Although the record of the hate incident itself violates the 2010 equalities act as race is a protected characteristic, nationality comes under race, and a flag is therefore an expression of that race. This is therefore discrimination of the basis of OP's race, and is in violation of the 2010 equalities act.


‘A Mr M. Rashford, witnessed multiple times in public brazenly displaying a hate symbol associated with religiously-motivated violence against Muslims, known to associate with a similarly attired extremist cell.’


COE Churches are also racist as they fly the St. George’s Cross.


The city of Genoa, also very racist.


> So this sets a legal precedent No it doesn't. That needs a judge to be involved.


In a hate incident the victim is the judge.


I get your point but I reckon it's still not a legal precedent.


Raheem Sterling. The world's biggest racist, white supremacist, nationalist, bigoted gammon. You heard it here first.




> I hope the OP is bullshiting. Unfortunately I don't think they are. Met Police says "hate incidents" can show up on Enhanced DBS checks, which they very well may have run on this guy due to the need to work with children and the vulnerable: https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/0842




*Supercilious pause while he puckers his lips and looks like the smuggest cat that ever got the creamiest cream available. Breathe out, move lips to microphone, stare straight into camera* "No" Eruptions of spontaneous applause, totally-not-fake wheezing laughter at the back, audience member near the front faints from the sheer brilliance of this imaginative one liner.


Being a smug cunt is his act.


The slippery slope is real


2010 equalities act has race as a protected characteristic, and defines race as: > Under the Equality Act 2010, race is a protected characteristic, and you must not therefore be discriminated against because of your race. > Race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship). The St. Georges cross is an expression of your race (being English), and recording a "non-crime hate incident" against a person for flying that flag is primary discrimination. Secondary discrimination would happen as a result of any consequences of that record on your DBS, in this chap's case he's lost employment on the basis of his race. So the police are discriminating against this person on the basis of their race, and violating the 2010 equalities act, and the organisation denying him employment on this is also violating the 2010 discrimination act by defacto discriminating on the basis of his race, a protected characteristic. This is certainly something for the solicitors to take up as it would be worth a nice amount in compensation but also some papers would love to publish this sort of thing.


I was going to post this. Absolute farce but that is the modern UK. Long since given up all our dignity.


That’s well dodgy If I’ve got an issue with someone I can now accuse them of doing something that offended me and they can get a record, irrespective of whether the thing I’ve accused them of has any grounding in reality. Mind boggling.


Media/Gov "we are seeing an exponential rise in hate crimes" Err!


The other one they do is they [refuse to properly count crimes against people on the basis of not having a particular religion](https://www.lotuseaters.com/open-letter-grooming-gang-survivor-accuses-uk-government-of-systemic-racism-19-04-21) (so basically none of the muslamic ray guns got hate crime bonuses to their sentences), and [they manipulate the presentation of the statistics to make it look like white people bad.](https://www.lotuseaters.com/the-home-office-is-hiding-anti-white-hate-crimes-and-helping-the-cover-up-of-26-05-21). Oh, and when the former was pointed out, they just said [“nah, we totes do.”](https://www.lotuseaters.com/home-office-response-to-open-letter-from-ella-hill-24-05-21).


Oh yeah statistics. What was that quote I heard about them one time? "Statistics are always right and you should never question the methodology" That's it I'm sure.




Realistically, what's the remedy here? Is there one? Assuming it's true, fuck the police for writing that but also fuck the employer for paying attention to it.


The legal system. Get this story out in the media and I'm sure there'll be plenty of good barristers out there willing to take this future landmark case on pro bono. It should end in a slam-dunk court judgement ruling the entire concept as unlawful.


>but also fuck the employer for paying attention to it. to be fair, employer is alleging it's an insurance issue that might be true here. Employer cna then wash their hands of it. It's an awful problem where the system is at fault for providing what is basically a bad yelp review of a person on a DBS check designed to protect vulnerable people. It's pretty absurd.


Transfer the responsibility for recording ‘non-crime hate incidents’ away from the police to a Home Office body that keeps them as anonymised data. Only actual crimes appear on DBS checks.


The same home office who think it is perfectly acceptable to present any statistic that looks like most hate crimes occur against white people (because they do) as a “percentage of the total population of possible victims of that group”?


I shat myself about this too once. Non-crime hate incidents can be reported as far as I’m concerned, but only convictions (and cautions) should appear on **any** DBS check. The fact that this isn’t the case is astonishing.


Disgusting. Show a bit of patriotism or pride and you're a hate criminal. A Union Jack that someone thought was a George Cross? Jfc even if it was a George Cross it would still be ridiculous. It's hardly a Swastika is it? Hardly some fascist symbol. I fear for this country.


As I'm not British, can someone give a tldr or what's (wrong with) a George Cross? I've found [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cross?wprov=sfla1), but I don't get what's wrong with that.


Nothing at all. It’s the flag of England.


People want everything to be racist.


Literally nothing


English nationalists (the EDL) used the flag of England, therefore anyone who uses the flag of England is a member of, or supports, the EDL.


faircop cover this sort of thing https://www.faircop.org.uk/ https://twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/


Holy shit, this will get struck down if it ever went to an employment tribunal or court.


Genuinely terrifying, I'm close to giving up on this country. How ever did we allow lunatics to make these decisions? This is obviously a non-issue that should have been immediately thrown out by the police. My personal opinion on hate crimes aside, if it's a "non-crime" incident then the police should not be reporting or archiving it. This is ripe for abuse. As if there weren't enough barriers to employment these days.


Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve done it. We’ve hit the point where having a Union Jack sticker on your car, the flag of our nation, can be recorded as a hate incident and jeopardise your career. God help us.


I'm convinced that the large hadron collider tipped us into some sort of bizarro world. I hear more and more ludicrous things daily and see so called sensible people going along with it.


An inspired weapon to use should you ever want to bar an adversary from professional life.


Honestly write to a couple of the non-soypilled papers and try to drum up a popular case. Pretty sure now, with the recent success of the England team, would be a perfect time to do it. I can see it on the front page of The Sun tbh.


We need to start a fundraiser so this guy can take the motherfuckers to court.


Even if this is trolling, there are confirmed cases that are pretty much as bad.


Harry from Humberside who liked a poem criticising trains on twatter and was rung up by a plod to "check his thinking."


Seems unbelievable this happened, if it is true then this country is going to the dogs.


I’d be ringing the police force who issued that 3 times a day, asking for an update on when it will be removed. Don’t even let the idea it won’t be a point of discussion.




Report the Queen. She's often got the Union Flag flying from the roof of her house, the [racist bitch](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDGlqxRWMAAd_tl.jpg).


It wasn't even a George Cross; it was a Union Jack and they didn't even put it there themselves.


what did the message say?


It's been removed, this is a copy of it >Hi everyone- this is not my normal account and has been set up only for the purpose of asking this question. I hope that's okay and also hope you understand why after reading this post. It's quite long so I apologise in advance. >I just recently had a mid-life career change that involved some University study, and then a futher two years of on-the-job training before I will be fully qualified. I breezed through the University portion of my training [although with Covid it was all via Zoom] and was just getting ready to start my first day of actual, practical work experience. I was really looking forward to it, especially after nearly fifteen years parked behind a desk. >My new career can potentially involve working with children and vulnerable people, so required a DBS check before I can set foot on my new work premises. There was a slight delay in checks being undertaken [again due to Covid] but I wasn't really fussed as I have [or thought I did!] a clean criminal record. I've never been arrested. I had three points a lifetime ago but I'd already checked that wouldn't be something that would impact my new career. >What I didn't know about was non-crime hate incidents. I received a call from my new workplace at the start of last week telling me they wouldn't be able to proceed with my work placement because of the hate crime on my criminal record! I was only shocked for about five minutes before realising there must be some mistake, as I've never even been arrested before. Long story short, pretty much all of last week was spent going back and forth between my University and prospective workplace to get a copy of the DBS, which was provided to me. I've copied what it says below, with identifying info removed. Some of it doesn't make grammatical sense, but that's the way it's written: >>Ready for filing: non crime hate. Victim has reported that [Me] has a flag in rear window of his car checkedx which she believes to be x George Cross. Victim believes this has been displayed as a symbol of racial hate and has made her feel alarmed and upset. Victim believes [Me] is likely to be involved in right wing activity targeting people like victim characteristic. non crim hate can be filed. >Like I said, it doesn't make proper sense and seems to have been written without any great care, but I hope you get the drift. After consulting with my University, I am now aware there is a VAST difference between a hate crime and hate incident, but even though this has been explained to them, my prospective employer isn't budging and says that for insurance reasons, I can't work with them and will not be allowed to work with other local trusts that do similar work. Essentially, my career is over before it has even started. >It's true that I did have a small flag in the rear-window of my old car, but it was a Union Jack not a George Cross and I didn't put it there- it was a used car and was one of those film stickers that would have done more damage to remove than just to leave [or so I thought!] >I've been on the phone to 101 all day today and they have told me there is nothing that can be done the Home Office makes them take these records. One person I spoke to actually said 'if you have a problem with it, then take us to court!' >I am sorry if this has rambled on, but I don't really know what to do. I can't afford a lawyer, never mind afford taking the police to court. Is there anything I can do to resolve this? >Thank you so much to anyone that takes the time to respond.


One of the most disgusting things I’ve read on Reddit.


Today on "*Things that did not happen..."*


And that redditor? Albert Einstein!