Not Going Back There...
by Rab Clark
Yesterday we tweeted one of our world-famous polls and it's been going like a wee choo-choo overnight...
Off-Topic Scotland
As you perceived it, was Humza Yousaf's 'white' speech in the Scottish Parliament 'hateful'?
2,702 votes
21 hours left
13.1K Views
(13) Off-Topic Scotland on X: "As you perceived it, was Humza Yousaf's 'white' speech in the Scottish Parliament 'hateful'?" / X (twitter.com)
For us, 2,702 votes in any poll is remarkable given that we only have 1288 followers. But with over 13,000 views, it seems that a larger proportion than usual are reluctant to cast a vote. (As a rule of thumb we reckon that approx one-third of viewers of the poll then go on to vote - the ratio is this case is closer to 5:1) Given that most people read/vote in a matter of seconds, we can only surmise that people are genuinely swithering on the issue or perhaps fear that casting a vote will somehow be recorded and held them against them.
And the opinion of those brave enough to cast their vote is pretty damning. Humza's speech *in their perception* (which is what matters after all) was hateful. That's not to say that Humza himself is a hateful person or a racist. We're not saying that. We merely presented his speech (NB the whole thing, not just the 'white' rap at the end) and asked for an honest opinion. It is what it is.
Will anything be done about it under the new legislation?
Short answer - no.
Why not?
Because the law will not be applied retrospectively.
This is important.
(2) UNN on X: "Just in🔥 Police Scotland confirms that Humza Yousaf will NOT be investigated for the speech he frequently spits the word 'white' with disdain in the Scottish Parliament. After some confusion they have stated the law will NOT be applied retrospectively. https://t.co/eK5ZLohr3i" / X (twitter.com)
Some are urging caution, suggesting that the tweet may be some kind of fake. We'll wait and see.
We're also looking forward to Police Scotland's response to the letter delivered to them yesterday by Sally Hughes, ex-officer and prospective parliamentary candidate standing as an independent in the next UK general election. Here is the full text of the letter, as c&ped from Iain Lawson's blog: Sally’s Letter to the Chief Constable – YOURS FOR SCOTLAND (wordpress.com)
Dear Chief Constable,
I’m writing to you out of deep concern with regards the reputational damage to Police Scotland with the imminent roll out of The Hate Crime Bill.
This Bill has been criticised by retired Judges, serving KC’s, Women’s Rights Groups, The Scottish Police Federation and individuals alike, all of whom have highlighted the far-reaching consequences this bill is likely to have on freedom of speech. Most readily described as Bad Law, written badly, and likely to be impossible to Police fairly without impinging on citizen’s Human Rights.
Much of the concerns appear to have already been argued in Court, in England, at the highest level, resulting in the change to their Policing Guidelines, as produced 20th October 2020 by the College of Policing, stating that Hate Crime Incidents will only be noted by Police if… the complaint presents a real risk of significant harm to individuals with particular characteristic/s and/or REAL risk of future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic.
As you were a senior serving Police Officer, in England, at the time these principles were argued in court and then implemented into Policing structures, I’m wondering what steps you took, as Chief Constable of Police Scotland, to draw to the attention of the Scottish Government the limitations this current legislation has, the damage it will do to citizens’ maliciously accused, the professional credibility of Scotland’s Police Service, and the legal cost of rectification both at court, and subsequent re-training of Police Officers.
I note with concern, the implementation of Remote Recording stations, for this legislation, including a Sex Shop!
Can you confirm that the common law offence of making false allegations to Police, will still be investigated fully by Police Scotland, even if, technically the complaint was initially submitted at a Remote Recording Station and not to a Police Officer? Under Common Law/ unlike statutory, this technicality should not be an issue.
Do you know if these outwith agencies are receiving Government (including local) funding, that would be more efficiently utilised by going to fund the Police in the first instance. If funding is going to these other agencies, can you clarify if budgets have been drawn up estimating what savings and/or cut backs to the Police are being made in return.
Can you explain, what, if any, risk assessments were made, with regards the likelihood of vulnerable persons attending to report upsetting incidents to staff trained in the fine arts of selling sex aids and pornography, in an environment where customers are cueing up to purchase such items?
Can you confirm, that incidents reported at such places, subsequently found to be invalid, or not meeting the criteria specified, will not be recorded in a 2-tier manner, the first to show a huge increase, the second to close the file. Or to put it more succinctly – that spurious, vexatious complaints will be recorded as such.
Can you confirm that those accused, will be notified that a complaint has been filed against them, even if no further Police Action is recommended.
Can you confirm the principle of Moorov, will not be extended to include incidents that do not meet the definition of criminality, no matter how hurt the complainer feels.
Can you confirm, that Police Officers investigating these complaints, will have your full support and backing in refusing to implement this bad law, where no crime has been committed, where to do so would be a contravention of the alleged perpetrators Human Rights – that you will not attempt to pressurise officers to follow unlawful orders.
Can you acknowledge, that the lack of biological science-based fact, along with vague legal definitions of what it legally means to be ‘transgender’ make it a faith held belief, and the legal win by Maya Forstater established in law, that gender critical beliefs are protected, and for this reason, Officers from Police Scotland should not be recording non crime instances of disagreement over this issue, any more than they should be recording incidents of atheism.
Can you confirm this aspect is something you have warned the Scottish Government about and can you re-assure the public by publishing Police Scotland’s official guidance to officers on this matter.
Can you confirm if procedures are in place to measure incidents recorded at remote stations, that fall far short of competency and in effect double the amount of Police time need to re-record them in a proper fashion.
If the remote recording stations receive Government funding, will Police Scotland be able to re-claim back moneys in such circumstances… similar in effect to mutual aid within the Policing service? And will Police be reporting such incompetence’s to a central body for review.
I am aware of at least 4 separate organisations/bloggers who are seeking legal advice and/or considering stopping publishing their information as a result of this bad law. The chilling effect on freedom of speech is very real and now active.
I look forward to your response. I would appreciate if each point is addressed separately. I will be making the contents of this letter and your reply public, and sharing it in full with the Scottish Policing Authority and Scottish Police Federation.
Many thanks, in advance, for your assistance.
Yours faithfully
Sally Hughes
General Election Candidate Perth and Kinross-shire
Independent
Biological Woman – Adult Human Female
.png)
