The police must fight crime, not legal speech
The UK is supposed to be the home of free speech – and a country where the police chase criminals, not law abiding members of the public.
So I was horrified, last November, when police officers called on Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson. It was initially believed that they were investigating a so-called non-crime hate incident (or NCHI), based on a comment she'd posted on social media.
In my view the police should have only one overriding priority: catching criminals and protecting the public from crime. This emphatically does not extend to acting as the thought police or intervening when someone makes an off colour remark online.
People are perfectly entitled to say whatever they like, including things that are offensive, provided that they are not illegal. These boundaries are set out by Parliament in law. It's illegal to incite racial or religious hatred, express support for a proscribed terrorist organisation such as Hamas or to use threats or intimidation to harass someone.
But saying that women don't have penises, criticising a religion or simply saying something offensive are not illegal. It follows that people should not be harassed or investigated by the police for any of these things.
And yet they are. Police investigated and recorded personal data on around 13,000 NCHIs last year – taking up around 30,000 hours of police time. This personal data – where no crime has been committed – is then potentially disclosable by the police as part of an enhanced criminal record check for years to come.
NCHIs were never legislated for by Parliament. They were created through police guidance in the early 2000s in response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence and further entrenched in 2014. The inquiry into Stephen Lawrence's murder found that the previous extreme racism exhibited by his killers should have been identified and his death thereby prevented.
Where hatred is such that it is likely to lead to an actual crime, then there is a good case for police taking an interest – as they would in relation to any intelligence that might be a precursor to criminal activity.
But over the years, NCHIs have expanded beyond all recognition and have strayed far from this original intention. Reporting in the Telegraph only yesterday showed that the police now don't even bother to analyse NCHIs for patterns of possible criminality.
NCHIs have been investigated and personal details recorded over the most absurdly trivial things. This has included singing a song with the word 'Africa' in the lyrics; commenting on EU citizens working here; a mobility scooter being ridden on a pavement; commenting on the trans debate; an intemperate email sent between family members and even playground arguments between children.
It is clear the police are now wasting colossal amounts of their time on NCHIs and infringing our ancient rights to free speech while they do so.
In 2023 while in government, Conservatives introduced tighter rules on NCHIs to try to stop this abuse. But a report by HM Inspector of Constabulary in September 2024 found that the new rules were being ignored. The Police had simply carried on as before.
I have raised this in Parliament over recent months and it's clear that the Labour government has no real intention of fixing this problem. This is why the Conservatives are now announcing a new policy: NCHIs as a category of incident should be scrapped in their entirety.
Police should only investigate or record something where it is likely to be genuinely necessary to prevent or investigate crime. This will free up tens of thousands of hours of police time to catch real criminals and help restore free speech. Instead of policing Twitter, police should spend more time catching burglars and mobile phone thieves.
The Conservatives will table this as an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill currently going through Parliament and will force a vote. Then it will be clear which MPs are willing to stand up for common sense, getting police priorities straight and for free speech – and which MPs are not.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent
Lord Young suggested the definition could even capture Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who has previously warned that 'excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.' Senior Labour politicians could also fall within the scope of the definition, he claimed. Lord Young cited Sir Keir's recent statement that without fair immigration rules, 'we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' There are growing fears that police are wrongly seeking to limit free speech. The Telegraph disclosed last month that Julian Foulkes, a retired police officer, was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism. Officers who conducted a search of his house described a collection of books by authors such as Mr Murray as 'very Brexity'. Mr Foulkes later received an apology and £20,000 compensation. Last year, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was questioned at home by two officers over an X post following pro-Palestinian protests. The Telegraph has also covered the case of Hamit Koskun, who was fined this week for burning a Koran. It led Mr Jenrick to accuse the courts of reviving blasphemy law. Lord Young said the course material appeared to reflect a shift in the Prevent approach from focusing on conduct – such as acquiring weapons or inciting violence – to 'treating ideology itself as a risk indicator, encompassing belief, alignment or political attitude'. He said the FSU had already had to support members referred to Prevent, including a 24-year-old autistic man whose social worker reported that he had been viewing 'offensive and anti-trans' websites and 'focusing on lots of Right-wing dark comedy'. Prevent referral could stain person's name Even if a person was subsequently deemed to require 'no further action', their name would risk remaining on police and other databases that could be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Charity Commission and local safeguarding teams. Lord Young said: 'There are multiple documented cases in which individuals referred to Prevent – despite not meeting the threshold for further action – suffered serious and lasting consequences simply because their names were logged in the system.' The row comes despite a report by Sir William Shawcross, a former independent reviewer of Prevent, which criticised the way that mainstream literature and even a former Cabinet minister had been described as 'cultural nationalists' by a Home Office research unit on extremism. The minister was later revealed as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. Sir William recommended that Prevent must be 'consistent in the threshold that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response.' He added that there were major failings with Prevent more broadly, including that it wrongly funnelled money to extremist organisations and had repeatedly failed to identify people who went on to carry out terrorist attacks. Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: 'It is a very difficult job that the Home Office has to do, but maybe they should do a careful bit of editing so that people who are close to the political mainstream are not caught up in it.' A former government adviser said the 'cultural nationalism' definition was 'pretty shoddy'. 'Agencies like counter-terrorism police and MI5 are much more rigorous in their classifications,' they said. 'We are talking about Right-wing extremists, who are often neo-Nazis. It undermines the seriousness of what counter-extremism is all about.' Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, said: 'We are now beginning to see the consequences of a referral mechanism built on training like this which skews away from suspicion by conduct to the mere possession of beliefs that are perfectly legitimate but regarded by Prevent policy wonks as 'problematic.''
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Kemi Badenoch refuses to kick Liz Truss out of Conservative Party
The Tory leader suggested such a move would be 'neither here nor there' for voters' perception of the party. In a speech on Thursday, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride sought to distance the Conservatives from Ms Truss's mini-budget, saying the party needed to show 'contrition' to restore its economic credibility. In a furious response, Ms Truss accused Sir Mel of having 'kowtowed to the failed Treasury orthodoxy' and being 'set on undermining my plan for growth'. Asked by the BBC on Friday whether she would consider throwing former prime minister Ms Truss out of the Conservatives in a symbolic break with her short-lived, turbulent time in No 10, Mrs Badenoch replied: 'Is she still in the party?' Ms Truss, the former Conservative MP for South West Norfolk, is understood to be a Tory party member still. Speaking to the BBC, Mrs Badenoch said: 'What is really important is what Mel was saying yesterday. What he was saying was that the mini-budget did not balance. It wasn't tax cuts, it was the … £150 billion of spending increases on energy bills that did not make sense.' Pressed whether she believed the mini-budget had damaged the Conservative brand, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Well, look at what happened, people didn't understand why we had done that, and so our reputation for economic competence was damaged.' When asked again why she would not consider kicking Ms Truss out of the party, the Tory leader said: 'It is not about any particular individual. I don't want to be commenting on previous prime ministers. 'They've had their time. What am I going to do now? Removing people from a political party is neither here nor there in terms of what it is your viewers want to see.' After insisting Ms Truss was not in Parliament anymore, Mrs Badenoch said her party needed to 'focus on how we're going to get this country back on track'. 'What we have right now is a Labour Government, it's Keir Starmer. We need to stop talking about several prime ministers ago and talk about the Prime Minister we've got now and what he's doing to the country,' the Tory leader said. Ms Truss this week appeared in a video to promote the Irish whiskey brand of bare-knuckle fighter Dougie Joyce, who was once jailed for attacking a 78-year-old man in a pub in 2022.
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Kemi Badenoch refuses to kick Liz Truss out of Conservative Party
The Tory leader suggested such a move would be 'neither here nor there' for voters' perception of the party. In a speech on Thursday, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride sought to distance the Conservatives from Ms Truss's mini-budget, saying the party needed to show 'contrition' to restore its economic credibility. In a furious response, Ms Truss accused Sir Mel of having 'kowtowed to the failed Treasury orthodoxy' and being 'set on undermining my plan for growth'. Asked by the BBC on Friday whether she would consider throwing former prime minister Ms Truss out of the Conservatives in a symbolic break with her short-lived, turbulent time in No 10, Mrs Badenoch replied: 'Is she still in the party?' Ms Truss, the former Conservative MP for South West Norfolk, is understood to be a Tory party member still. Speaking to the BBC, Mrs Badenoch said: 'What is really important is what Mel was saying yesterday. What he was saying was that the mini-budget did not balance. It wasn't tax cuts, it was the … £150 billion of spending increases on energy bills that did not make sense.' Pressed whether she believed the mini-budget had damaged the Conservative brand, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Well, look at what happened, people didn't understand why we had done that, and so our reputation for economic competence was damaged.' When asked again why she would not consider kicking Ms Truss out of the party, the Tory leader said: 'It is not about any particular individual. I don't want to be commenting on previous prime ministers. 'They've had their time. What am I going to do now? Removing people from a political party is neither here nor there in terms of what it is your viewers want to see.' After insisting Ms Truss was not in Parliament anymore, Mrs Badenoch said her party needed to 'focus on how we're going to get this country back on track'. 'What we have right now is a Labour Government, it's Keir Starmer. We need to stop talking about several prime ministers ago and talk about the Prime Minister we've got now and what he's doing to the country,' the Tory leader said. Ms Truss this week appeared in a video to promote the Irish whiskey brand of bare-knuckle fighter Dougie Joyce, who was once jailed for attacking a 78-year-old man in a pub in 2022.
