Common Purpose is forging forward with it’s “evidence” gathering. This is “evidence” that there is an army of Neo-Nazis running around persecuting new arrivals and enforcing sexual norms. The evidence is used both to justify Common Purpose as it is now as well as to ask for more powers.
These are the new statistics.
I’m surprised we aren’t seeing these scare crows yet. Although these days I guess they use social media to mimic straight white males and straw man our political positions.
With regard to the chart above, the figures on the left are hate incidents, i.e. where a “hate attack” has occured but the law was not sufficient to bring the perpetrator to justice. These stats are being recorded with the view to add more hate crime laws.
The figures on the right are hate crimes where there was a crime or there was perceived to be a crime. So from the figure of 1,045 for 2017 to even find a hate crime where someone has criticised a religion you would have to remove the stats in these occaisions;
- A hoax, possibly politically motivated or someone looking for better housing etc
- A hoax perpetrated by the left, Common Purpose or the ANTIFA to further their agenda/gain funding.
- The “victim” perceived contact where there was none, (microaggressions, facial ticks) where the white “aggressor” has not perceived contact. This could be something like whitie looking at his phone, laughing at a meme and passing a Pakistani who believes whitie is laughing at him, in contravention of Pakistani street etiquette.
- In South America thumbs up can be an insult, so maybe whitie was cheerfully giving the thumbs up and the victim thinks whitie will put his thumb up his ass. The smile was just perceived as sheer madness and willingness to carry out the attack.
Yeah there are lots of these possibilities. Check out the website below for examples with website links.
The PSNI Perception test.
“Evidence is not the test when reporting a hate incident; when an incident or crime has been reported to police by the victim or by any other person and they perceive it as being motivated by prejudice or hate, it will be recorded and investigated as a hate incident or crime. The perception of the victim, or any other person is the
defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. Perception-based recording refers to the perception of the victim, or any other person. It would not be appropriate to record a crime or incident as a hate crime or hate incident if it was based on the perception of
a person or group who had no knowledge of the victim, crime or the area, and who may be responding to media or internet stories or who are reporting for a political or similar motive. The other person could, however, be one of a number of people, including: police officers or staff; witnesses; family members; civil society organisations
who know details of the victim, the crime or hate crimes in the locality, such as a third-party reporting charity; a carer or other professional who supports the victim; someone who has knowledge of hate crime in the area – this could include many professionals and experts such as the manager of an education centre used by people
with learning disabilities who regularly receives reports of abuse from students; a person from within the group targeted with the hostility, eg, a Traveller who witnessed racist damage in a local park.”
The article about the scarecrow.