This is a question I never thought I would ever ask, but Black Lives Matter may well have a point. For over one million people, it is as if they have been defunded. The one million people are those who were burgled over the past five years and whose burglaries remain unsolved. According to an item by Ian Collins on talkRADIO on 4 May, 90% of these burglaries go unsolved. This ironically is an improvement on the 95% that went unsolved in 2018. For these million people, defunding the police would make no difference. Of course, they may be the victim of another crime, robbery or assault, which the police either prevent or solve. But not if it is in the present climate. Lately you are more likely to see a police officer if a non-crime hate incident has been committed or there has been a breach of social distancing in a pub during the pandemic.
In existence since 2014 but only in the public eye since 2021when Harry Miller fought the law and won, an impressive 120,000 non-crime hate incidents had been logged. That is 120,000 incidents investigated and recorded—a lengthy process for any police officer—where no crime was committed, and nothing actually happened. It is hardly surprising that so many burglaries go unsolved. Thankfully, Home Secretary Priti Patel has called a halt to this nonsense. It may be the case that the time freed up will result in fewer unsolved burglaries. My guess is that it will be focused, initially, in enforcing the final tatters of the COVID-19 regulations with even greater vehemence than at the height of the pandemic. Something tells me this government and the Ministry of Public Health have a few more points to make and many scores to settle. Once the pandemic is over and people begin to realise the massive con trick to which they have been subjected over scientifically dubious measures, principally lockdown, and begin to get organised, the police may have other distractions to deal with on our streets and public squares.
To date, in England, notwithstanding the ludicrous non-crime hate incidents—still something that exists in the College of Policing Manual—you can only be prosecuted for something you actually say or write that is considered outside the law. For example, an incitement to violence or racial and religious abuse. But with the Scottish Hate Crime Bill being passed into an Act, the corrosive effect of such an intrusive and sinister piece of legislation is seeping southward and some bright spark of a busy-body at Westminster already thinks that we should have one in England. If this happens, those of us living down here will long for the days of the non-crime hate incidents. A Scottish style hate crime bill would classify as hate almost anything that anyone found offensive about you that they heard or saw. A child could repeat what an adult said in the privacy of their own home, for example, and land their mum or dad with a prison sentence. Possessing and displaying the wrong kinds of books could lead to the same. That puts every copy of The Bible back in the loft. It is expressly pro heterosexual marriage, against marital infidelity, mentions slavery but never condemns it and speaks of a chosen people. Of course, it also recommended stoning adulterers, but we don’t do that any longer. We now have same sex marriage, it’s the law of the land. Some may disapprove and express that but so what? It does not change the law and it does not mean that we are a hateful society.
But what it will mean is that the police will be diverted to dealing with the fallout and, in many ways, who can blame them. If I were alerted to a stabbing incident on a rainy night or one where someone had been offended in the comfort of their own home, I know which one I would rather be blue lighting to. And it is already happening without a hate crime bill. Take the disgraceful incident where an elderly pastor was locked up by the police for nearly a day for preaching the Christian gospel because someone was upset by it. I do not like blaming the police officer on the street who has a bewildering and increasing array of legislation to consider. But really, what was in the minds of the two officers who effected this arrest and brutally dragged the man away? If individual police officers think it is acceptable to behave in this way—and let’s face it, they should have told the complainant to take a hike—then they are no longer a police force. They are a thought crime monitor and a restrictor of free speech. I do not want my rates and taxes to fund that.
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
