Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

I feel like I had been patient with the government but Reeves praising the police guidance saying to start disclosing ethnicity/race in police reports is just a step too far.

They seem determined to repeat the Tories' road to ruin - become such a copycat of Farage that their reason to be just going to be eliminated - why go second best if people can just directly vote on Farage?

[Sheilbh]

The guidance didn't emerge in a vacuum - the College of Policing were asked to look a this by Yvette Cooper and I think she wanted it to happen.

I think it's probably necessary but I think it's only one piece. The police are incredibly resistant to any transparency - they broadly provide as little information as possible through formal channels (but absolutely feed favoured reporters and outlets with off the record briefings).

And I think it's a little wider than just police - I think we need to look more broadly at reporting restrictions and contempt of court rules on reporting crime (and how privacy laws have interacted with this) because I don't think it's working in an age of social media. I think that approach of reporting restrictions, very limited on the record information plus off the record briefing worked in a traditional media environment but doesn't any more. Speaking to reporters, we have one of the most restrictive sets of rules for what the mainstream media can say and what information they get. And I don't think it's working as intended.

I wouldn't go fully American on this but I think we need the police to be more on the front foot - and allow the media to also do that.

Edit: I'd add this has always been allowed. The shift in the guidance is that it is now encouraged:

Forces should confirm the nationality and/or ethnicity of the suspect (where known or recorded) in high profile, or sensitive investigations or operations where there is:

• a policing purpose in doing so
• a related risk or impact on public safety such as rising community tension
• misinformation or disinformation leading to community tension
• a significant level of media or social media interest

I'd add there may still be a bit too much discretion around that in my view.

[HVC]

Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Report and people call you racist, don't report and everyone just assumes you didn't because the perp was a minority.

[Josquius]

Yeah, I get where its coming from.
It made total sense with Stockport when all the conspiracy shit about a Muslim asylum seeker was flying to go "Err, guys, he's a black British kid born in Wales with zero known connections to Islam".

The trouble is if it becomes standard to do this then when the police don't announce it the rumours will start flying.

I guess on balance since most of the crap blamed on asylum seeking muslims isn't asylum seeking muslims it makes sense to do it?
But that won't stop the fasc, they'll just blow up the one time one of them is a crook into a big event- see the current stuff happening in Epping.

I'm all for gathering this data on nationality, immigration status, etc... BUT they should also gather other data that is more likely to be pertinent in reasons for criminality. Where they're from, socio-economic status growing up, etc...

[Sheilbh]

Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Report and people call you racist, don't report and everyone just assumes you didn't because the perp was a minority.

Yeah and in particular there are two recent cases which demonstrate exactly this point that has been referred to by the College.

One was someone drove a car into a group of Liverpool fans celebrating the Premier League championship and within hours the police released that the suspect was a white British national. That was because they wanted to quash any rumours that it was terrorism and Islamophobic rumours.

The other was the Southport murders where the police did not reveal for several days that the suspect was black British national. And in that time, again, the rumours were Islamophobic and there were mobs attacking mosques and properties housing asylum seekers.

In both of those cases the rumours and lies were happening. In one the police decided to release the information in the other they didn't - and I think this actually leads to a further perception that basically they release information if it's white British to dispel rumours therefore if they're not it's because it's not. So I think a degree of consistency would be better.

Again I would say that the police in the UK give out very, very little information officially. At the moment all that is formally confirmed (as standard) at the point of arrest is age and gender (more information comes at charging). This interacts with reporting restrictions and privacy laws because basically until the press are very limited on what they can report and when. So at the point of arrest (and investigation) there is a lot of case law that's very restrictive over right to a private life (these cases came about because of some absolutely disgraceful coverage by the press - but are now very, very tight) and once someone is charged contempt of court reporting restrictions kick in. One of the side effects of this is that even if the mainstream media, with a legal team aware of their legal restrictions, knows that something circulating is untrue they cannot really debunk it because it would be hinting at facts they're not allowed to print.

And I do think there's really good reasons for that stuff. But I think the case law that's emerged based on the ECHR is wrong and far more sweeping than it should be. The reporting restrictions regime works in the context of a few newspapers and broadcasters being the way information disseminates. I don't think it works in an age of social media and everyone with a phone camera. I think that needs looking at more broadly - but more formal, on the record transparency from the police would be good (and it should go further than this).

Obviously the big caveat with this is that police lie and they cover up mistakes/crimes/corruption by police - I'd hope that transparency would also help on that front but I'm less confident because they lie and cover up.

Edit: Just on Southport I'd add the other interesting angle on that (and the murderer seems deeply troubled I think he's since attacked a prison guard with boiling water) is that the killer was known to local authorities. He'd been reported three times to Prevent which is a counter-extremism program in the UK. For a few years now their reports have said the fastest growing category of reports they're receiving is "mixed or unclear" ideologies - so Islamism, far right etc are relatively clear cut. But what they're seeing lots of is just concerning signs/behaviour prompting reports but it's not got a clear ideological direction.

That was the case with Rudakabana who committed the Southport murders. He was basically demonstrating a very strong interest in extreme violence and terrorism but not from an ideological perspective. He was also occasionally caught taking a knife into school etc. And in the reports since it looks like his file was prematurely closed in part because a counter-extremism group didn't really know what to do with "mixed or unclear". He was interested in the violence itself, not the purpose behind it. I get why that's difficult for them but I think if it's also the largest growing category of reports they probably need to do a bit of thinking about how they handle those cases.

[Tamas]

Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Report and people call you racist, don't report and everyone just assumes you didn't because the perp was a minority.

No, it's damned if you do.

Do you really think the "oh it is not written because it's brown people" crowd will go "ok so I see this was done by an Arab, I best compare it to how many reports listed a white English person for the same crime"?

No, they will cite the numbers that benefit their narrative, ignore the larger picture, and weaponise these stats. Worst case if they really have to, they'll start accusing the police of falsifying data.


And I am sorry Sheilbh but it is just naive to think this statistics will be used to curb police racism. The WORST thing that could happen to a given minority is for these stats to show they are disproportionally representative in some petty crime and then that publicised. It would NOT be taken by the public as a "gotcha!" on the police, but rather, on the minority.

This is a terrible idea.

[HVC]

If they're always gonna assume they're brown then telling them what race it is actually cuts down on the narrative does it not? I mean if it's never released then basically to that crowd it's a 100% brown stat.

[HVC]

Side question based tamas' posts, do Brit cops not keep any race stats at all? No prison stats, arrest stats, and all that jazz?

[Sheilbh]

Side question based tamas' posts, do Brit cops not keep any race stats at all? No prison stats, arrest stats, and all that jazz?

Yes-ish. They are supposed to which is why "known or recorded" is there.

It has been a consistent criticism of various reports into policing from reports commissioned after BLM into structural racism in policing and criminal justice, to the Casey report into grooming gangs that the police are not collecting the data they are supposed to be collecting.

Again in my view that's because if you an institution that lies and covers things up, then opacity helps.

No, they will cite the numbers that benefit their narrative, ignore the larger picture, and weaponise these stats. Worst case if they really have to, they'll start accusing the police of falsifying data.

So this is slightly separate this is just what information should police release at the point of arrest. But Yvette Cooper has instructed that she wants this data released and I think they're following the Danish model on that.

[Tamas]

But releasing the etnicty info implies that it matters, that it's a factor.

[The Brain]

What kind of state registers people's race?

[Valmy]

What kind of state registers people's race?

The United States of America.

Which probably isn't a ringing endorsement of the practice 

[Sheilbh]

But releasing the etnicty info implies that it matters, that it's a factor.

But it is already released on a discretionary basis so Merseyside Police did over Liverpool but not Southport (I suspect in part because of that experience). It is also released at the point of charging.

The change is moving from can to should plus a list of factors which I think is good. I also think moving it forward from charging to arrest would help prevent rumours and lies from spreading with real life consequences. (As I say I could be wrong but I suspect that's why Merseyside, having the experience in Southport, thought early release of that information in the Liverpool case could nip a lot of trouble in the bud.)

What kind of state registers people's race?

How does a state know about the impact of race and racial inequality if it's not collecting that data?

There is a big Anglo world v Europe divide here. But an example of how it matters is we know the (significant) impact race had on covid outcomes. Minorities and particularly were more likely to die in the first wave (that difference fell in subsequent waves, I think because we knew about it). But when the FT tried to do similar analysis in Europe, they couldn't because the data didn't really exist but I think it did for US, Australia etc.

I agree with the Euro colourblind approach in theory, but I think we live in a society with racial disparities. And I think to know what they are, where they come from and try to address them you need to collect that information.

Edit: I'd add one of the few things I'd praise Theresa May for as Home Secretary was a significant reduction in the use of stop and search and in the racial disparity. She spoke about it to the Police Federation in a very impressive speech to show she was putting her political capital behind it, but the actual change that produced  those drops: a mandatory form and better data collection.

[garbon]

The UN has said it is to the detriment of resolving inequalities that German and French governments cannot collect race/ethnicity information.

[HVC]

What kind of state registers people's race?

The United States of America.

Which probably isn't a ringing endorsement of the practice 

Canada too.. and i think Australia.

*edit* With the RCMP it's relatively new. They had a whole press release about the initiative a few years ago