When Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, calls for Parliament to change the law so officers no longer need to arrest people for words, it sounds like a reasonable plea. After all, most of us don\u2019t want police officers spending their days chasing down bad jokes on social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But here\u2019s the uncomfortable truth: much of the so-called \u201cpolicing of speech\u201d isn\u2019t driven by Parliament at all. It\u2019s driven by the police themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The roots go back to 1999<\/strong> and the Macpherson Inquiry<\/strong> into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. The report recommended that the police take racist incidents seriously, whether or not they rose to the level of a crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That was a fair and necessary correction at the time. The Lawrence case exposed deep failures, and change was overdue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what followed was something very different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The result? The creation of Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs)<\/strong> \u2014 records of speech or behaviour perceived as hostile, even if no crime has taken place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s where the problem lies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n So when the Met Chief says his officers need the law changed, he\u2019s half-right and half-wrong. The bigger truth is that the police invented this system themselves<\/strong>. They could stop recording NCHIs tomorrow if they chose. No Act of Parliament is required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By calling for a law change, senior officers are really asking politicians to give them political cover<\/strong>. If government narrows the definition of hate crime or limits NCHI recording, police leadership can retreat without being accused of ignoring hate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But make no mistake: the current state of affairs \u2014 where lawful speech can be logged like a crime \u2014 is not something MPs foisted on the police. It\u2019s something police leadership built, step by step, from 1999 onwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes, Parliament could and should clarify the law. But the immediate responsibility sits squarely with policing institutions themselves. They created NCHIs. They expanded their scope. They chose to treat perception as fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the Met Chief is serious about ending the policing of words, he doesn\u2019t need to wait on Westminster. He can start by scrapping his own force\u2019s in-house rules<\/strong> that go beyond the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It began with the good intention of ensuring racism was never ignored. It has ended with a system that records jokes, opinions, and lawful speech as if they were crimes. That isn\u2019t justice. That\u2019s bureaucracy gone rogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The finger should be pointed clearly where it belongs: at the police leadership who created the problem, not just at Parliament.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHope isn\u2019t what they promise you. It\u2019s how you carry on when they don\u2019t deliver.\u201d \u2014 Dave Carrera<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, calls for Parliament to change the law so officers no longer need to arrest people for words, it sounds like a reasonable plea. After all, most of us don\u2019t want police officers spending their days chasing down bad jokes on social media. But here\u2019s the uncomfortable […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":822,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[182],"tags":[320,322,321],"class_list":["post-821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-thoughts","tag-macpherson-report","tag-metropolitan-police","tag-stephen-lawrence"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe Contradiction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nPassing the Buck<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhere the Finger Points<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nFinal thought<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n