The myth of rising hate crime

Britain has never been less hateful.

Fraser Myers

Fraser Myers
Staff writer

Topics Politics UK

Hate crimes have ‘doubled’ in the past six years, if you believe headlines in the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. The BBC reports a less dramatic but still shocking 10 per cent rise in hate crime compared to last year, from 94,121 to 103,379 offences in England and Wales. Every year, the press presents terrifying figures illustrating an apparent explosion in hate crime. But there is no evidence that hate crime is on the rise.

Every year, the same, small caveat appears in the Home Office’s hate-crime report: ‘The increases seen over the last five years are thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording by the police… These improvements are thought to be the main drivers for the increases seen.’

Every year, in contrast to the media’s frightful certainty, the Home Office report is full of ‘mights’, ‘mays’ and other bet-hedging. Take hate crime against trans people. Apparently there has been a surge of 37 per cent in these crimes on last year. But the Home Office report is much more guarded: it says that ‘improvements made by the police’ in ‘identification’ and ‘recording’ are the most likely cause of the rise, but ‘genuine increases cannot be ruled out’. In other words, alarming statistics showing a huge rise in transphobic hate crime of 37 per cent may or may not have any relation to actual crimes, according to the people who compiled the statistics.

Rises in hate crime have been blamed on everything from Brexit to Boris’s outburst on the burqa. This year, The Times and the Mail blamed uncivil language on social media for stoking hate. But the real blame for the surge is the release of the College of Policing’s Hate Crime Operational Guidance in 2014, which is still used to this day. This guidance actually demands that the numbers increase. ‘Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate’, it says. Since then there have also been a number of awareness-raising campaigns around hate crime, particularly in the wake of the EU referendum. In 2017, London mayor Sadiq Khan launched the Metropolitan Police’s ‘Online Hate Crime Hub’. Unsurprisingly, police-recorded hate crime has gone up every year since 2014 without fail. In comparison, over the same period, the crime rate more broadly has remained relatively stable.

In fact, when you look at statistics that are, according to the Home Office, ‘unaffected by changes in recording practice’, you find the complete opposite. The Crime Survey for England and Wales doesn’t provide information on short-term rises and falls but over the long term the trend is clear: over the past decade, it shows a fall in hate crime of 40 per cent. The CPS’s prosecution statistics paint a similar picture. Despite surges in the number of reports made to the police, the number of people actually being prosecuted for hate crimes has also fallen. Hate-crime prosecutions peaked in 2015-16 with 15,442 and have fallen every year since to 11,881 in 2017-18 (the latest year available).

But the problems with police-recorded hate crime don’t end there. Police are obliged to record not only criminal actions but also all non-crime hate incidents. A non-crime hate incident is literally any event that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility towards a so-called protected characteristic. ‘Perceived’ is the key word here. As the Operational Guidance makes clear: ‘The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incidents.’

In other words, for an incident to appear in the police-recorded hate-crime data, there does not have to be any evidence of any ‘hatred’, nor does the incident even have to be a crime. The only real basis for establishing that a hate crime took place is that somebody reported it to the police. ‘Racist’ non-crime incidents recorded by police as hate crimes over the past five years have included a dog fouling on a neighbour’s lawn, a woman beeping a car, and a speech by Amber Rudd.

Sometimes the ‘hateful’ nature of a crime is later disproven, but that makes no difference to the statistics. Take the manslaughter of Arek Jozwik, a Polish man living in Harlow, which was leapt on by Remain commentators as evidence of a Brexit-motivated racist murder. Police also recorded it as a hate crime. And even though it became apparent in investigations that there was no racial motive, Jozwik’s tragic, accidental killing remains recorded as a hate crime.

Clearly, the police-recorded data tells us very little about prejudice in modern Britain. We should take media reports of rising hatred with a huge serving of salt. And we should be even more wary of those who use this narrative for propaganda purposes.

Fraser Myers is a staff writer at spiked and host of the spiked podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @FraserMyers.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Willie Penwright

21st October 2019 at 8:47 am

I regard myself as a misgendered sehale and dress accordingly. I have also altered my physical appearance with tatoos and metal implants to express my sehaleness but find myself being hate-stared at when shopping in the High Street. Hate-staring is as serious a crime as hate speech.

Bunny Whisperer

18th October 2019 at 6:43 pm

Anyone can grossly inflate the stats by using local council magazines and the like to solicit “hate crime” reporting. In my local (taxpayer funded) council’s monthly magazine, delivered to each resident’s doorstep by the local authority, residents were not only instructed to “report hate crime”, but also reminded that the law requires no evidence, and that the “perception of the victim” is enough to make somethng a hate crime in this new Orwellian atmosphere that encourages citizens to police one another’s blasphemous speech while short-circuiting civilized debate. If I were pushing for even more protection for my ideoligical “victim” group so that I could gain yet more privilege and protection from the heinous crime of differing opinion, I know what I’d do!!

Michael Lynch

17th October 2019 at 11:35 pm

If you preach at and harangue people long enough then they’ll become the very thing you are accusing them of. It’s as old as the human race.

Christopher Tyson

17th October 2019 at 8:30 pm

Paraphrasing from memory, there’s an Oscar Wilde character who says ‘you like everyone, or rather you are indifferent to them’. Jesus warned of the dangers of seeing the speck in the eye of the other while not noticing the beam in our own. I’ve remarked before of the visceral reaction I’ve received to things I’ve posted here by people who are, let’s call them far right, even thought they would resist this label. The centrist, liberal, and leftists who are generally my target do not react at all. This is interesting for an existentialist (I might accept or reject that label). For my rightist critics, my existence is not in doubt, my existence is a profound disturbance for them. For the liberals I scarcely exist, like Ralph Ellison’s invisible man. To be part of the anti-racist narrative you must play your allotted role, does anyone remember when Chuka Umunna was hailed as the ‘British Obama’? And we have Stormzy the misunderstood ‘dangerous’ radical with a soft heart. I once called this syndrome ‘muggers and messiahs’. Those who reveal the unconscious biases of others, imply their own pure hearts, those who proclaim our ‘post-truth’ world assume their own truthfulness, those who see racism everywhere presume their own virtue. There are many ways to include and exclude. Those with social power can find myriad ways to control and influence people, to include and exclude. In media, in the corporate world in politics, who hands out the jobs and the money? They don’t need to be racist to exclude the black people that they don’t like, indeed an employer can take on countless black people to whom he is indifferent, while excluding the one he doesn’t like, with a perfect alibi. Forgiveness was the great innovation of Christianity. This strange idea, but forgiveness is not about the perpetrator, it is about the victimised, it is about coming to terms, dealing with your own negativity. Even under siege, a siege mentality will not help you. The old anarchist story is about people whose legs are bound at birth, they become accomplished at hopping around, when a ‘threat’ to remove their bandages emerges, they resist violently. We can witness this danger, a siege mentality and victimhood become part of the sense of self and purpose, the possibility of freedom is no longer imagined or desired.

Amma Zombi

17th October 2019 at 4:11 pm

Orwell warned us of this.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.