In recent discussions surrounding policing and free speech, the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom has advocated for a significant change in how police investigate instances of non-crime hate incidents. This call to action was notably emphasized by the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, who believes that police should only engage in such investigations when there is a clear and immediate risk of criminal conduct. Philp’s comments reflect a broader concern regarding the policing of thought and expression, particularly in a political climate that increasingly values the protection of free speech.
Philp, addressing the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners conference held in Westminster, argued for an urgent revision of existing police guidance on hate speech. His remarks were sparked by a controversy involving journalist Allison Pearson, who became the subject of an investigation led by Essex Police over an allegation that she breached the Public Order Act due to a post she made on social media in the previous year. Pearson’s case highlights the complexities and challenges involved in the landscape of modern communication, where online speech can easily cross into contentious territory.
A non-crime hate incident is defined as a scenario in which no actual criminal act has occurred, but the individual reporting it perceives that it was motivated by hostility towards a protected characteristic. Philp’s assertion underscores the party’s view that the current framework allows for excessive scrutiny of speech—an avenue he argues should be avoided to prevent an overreach of police powers into areas that might infringe on individual freedoms.
Continuing his argument for public safety, Philp stressed that the police force should primarily concentrate on investigating and preventing actual crimes rather than diverting resources to what he considers distractions, such as probing neutral or offensive statements that do not amount to illegal acts. He contended that errors were being made when the police focus their efforts on trivial matters, stating, “Distractions from that mission should be jettisoned,” and emphasized the need for officers to prioritize the catching of criminals rather than engaging in the policing of offensive speech.
Philp’s policy suggestions resonate with the assertion that non-crime hate incidents should not be directed towards instances of minor conflict among children—context he cited based on reports of playground disputes. He seeks a revision of guidance that ensures non-crime hate incidents are investigated only when there is a tangible and imminent risk of violence, thus maintaining a vital balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding community safety.
The conversation has garnered attention from various stakeholders, including the Home Office, which has been approached for a response to Philp’s proposals. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper previously acknowledged the need for a “common sense and consistent approach” in handling the recording of hate-related occurrences, involving a careful assessment of how such protocols might infringe upon the right to free speech.
In the evolving narrative, the tensions are clear. Recent controversies, such as the inquiry involving Pearson—who has denied any wrongdoing and described the police engagement as “Kafkaesque”—exemplify the potential pitfalls of policing social media expression. Essex Police clarified that investigations are conducted under the law’s auspices, with emphasis on the goal of preventing further hate-related incidents, yet they also acknowledged that transparency in communication with individuals under investigation is crucial.
As the realm of free expression continues to intersect with policing and public safety protocols, the Conservative Party’s push for policy refinement aims to reinforce the value placed on free speech, while at the same time addressing the concerns of communities affected by hostility and potential hate crimes. The failure to strike a delicate balance could lead to broader implications for civil liberties, highlighting the importance of ongoing deliberation in matters of policing and speech regulation. The current guidance, which was introduced by the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, is set to be re-examined, with recognition that proper implementation must prioritize proportionality and necessity in a nuanced social landscape.
