[Kaiserschmarrn]

That doesn't stop the Policy Exchange article you pointed up that used single survey year numbers being a load of disingenuous bollocks.

The graph I posted is from that article and for the crime survey it does not use single years. The article itself also clearly uses estimates from CSEW reports.

From page 21 of the report you linked:

According to the combined 2015/16 to 2017/18 CSEW11, there were around 184,000 incidents of hate crime a year.

From the article I linked:

The figures show that in 2015/16 to 2017/18 there was an average of 184,000 hate crimes across all strands each year. That is down from an average of 307,000 each year between 2007/8 and 2008/9.

They say the same thing. Imagine that!

[ingliz]

estimates from CSEW reports.

I know you are keen to paint all Leave voters as rational actors but that doesn't alter the fact that polling showed race was a significant driver for Leave voters and the number of hate crimes rose significantly after the referendum.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I know you are keen to paint all Leave voters as rational actors but that doesn't alter the fact that polling showed race was a significant driver for Leave voters and the number of hate crimes rose significantly after the referendum.

So now you are just reverting back to your initial assertion.

Can you tell me how you square the fact that hate crime reporting has steadily increased while during the same time period the CSEW shows a decrease? They can't both be right after all which should, in my view, make any rational person skeptical of the accuracy of the less reliable data set, i.e. the hate crime reports.

[ingliz]

Can you tell me how you square ...

But you cannot say the hate crime reports are the less reliable data set in this case as the number of hate crime incidents and victims estimated in a single survey year is too unreliable to report on and CSEW figures only report a trend.

The increase over the last year is thought to reflect both a genuine rise in hate crime around the time of the EU referendum, as well as ongoing improvements in crime recording by the police.

[anarchist23]

LONDON (Reuters) - Jo Johnson, the younger brother of Boris, resigned from British Prime Minister Theresa May’s government on Friday, calling in a withering critique for another referendum to avoid her Brexit plans unleashing Britain’s greatest crisis since World War Two.

FILE PHOTO: Jo Johnson arrives at 10 Downing Street, London, Britain, January 9, 2018. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls
Quitting as a junior transport minister, Johnson called May’s Brexit plans delusional and said he could not vote for the deal she is expected to unveil in parliament within weeks.

“Britain stands on the brink of the greatest crisis since the Second World War,” said Johnson, a former Financial Times journalist who voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 referendum.

Johnson, 46, called it the worst failure of statecraft since the 1956 Suez canal crisis, in which Britain was humiliatingly forced by the United States to withdraw its troops from Egypt.

“To present the nation with a choice between two deeply unattractive outcomes, vassalage and chaos, is a failure of British statecraft on a scale unseen since the Suez crisis,” he said.

“Given that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be so far from what was once promised, the democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say,” he added.


Johnson’s criticism underscored the travails that May faces in getting any Brexit divorce deal, which London and Brussels say is 95 percent done, approved by her own fractious party.

The pound sank to a day’s low beneath $1.30 on the resignation and also fell against the euro. It was unclear whether others would follow Johnson out of government.

In the June 2016 referendum, 17.4 million voters, or 51.9 percent, backed leaving the EU while 16.1 million, or 48.1 percent, backed staying.

Johnson wants a three-way referendum giving the people a choice between remaining in the EU, May’s deal and no deal.

May’s office rejected his call, saying Britain would not hold a second referendum on its EU membership “under any circumstances”.

“UNITED IN DISMAY”

Johnson is the 14th minister to have resigned from government since November last year and the most senior to have called for another referendum in his leaving statement.

His resignation was published after May spent much of the day in France and Belgium, laying wreaths alongside fellow leaders to mark the centenary of the end of World War One.

As negotiations with Brussels enter their final fraught stage, May’s approach is under fire from all sides of the divisive Brexit debate.

Many politicians are unhappy with her compromise plans to maintain the free trade of goods with the EU, which they say will leave Britain subject to decisions in Brussels without any input.

FILE PHOTO: Jo Johnson, the brother of Boris Johnson, walks through Westminster in London, Britain, June 30, 2016. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls
In his 1,600-word resignation statement, Johnson said May’s proposed deal would leave Britain in a “far worse” negotiating position than now, adding he also knew from his work at the Department of Transport how painful a “no deal” Brexit would be.

Boris Johnson, a leading supporter of Brexit who quit as foreign secretary in July, praised his brother’s decision, saying they were “united in dismay” - despite their opposing views on Brexit - over May’s handling of the negotiations.

May is expected to hold a cabinet meeting later this month in the hope of securing ministers’ support for her negotiating stance and hopes to strike an exit deal with the EU in the next few weeks.

Compounding May’s problems on Friday, the Northern Irish party that props up her minority government cast her Brexit negotiation as a betrayal and said it could not support any deal that divided the United Kingdom.

The Democratic Unionist Party interpreted a promise made by May in a letter that she would never let a division of the UK “come into force” as an admission that such a clause would be included in a final deal.

As campaigners step up pressure on the government calling for the public to be given another say on Brexit, the opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn dashed campaigners’ hopes he could back another referendum.

Asked by German magazine Der Spiegel if he would stop Brexit if he could, Corbyn said: “We can’t stop it. The referendum took place....What we can do is recognise the reasons why people voted leave.”

Edit:

Tory members of the European Parliament have complained that letting EU citizens vote in UK elections after Brexit will hurt their party in the polls.

In WhatsApp messages seen by BuzzFeed News, they said the idea was “madness” and warned the Tories “won’t win any votes from the new arrivals from the EU”.

In a message to the Conservative MEPs’ WhatsApp group last night, senior Brexiteer Daniel Hannan claimed he had seen an extract of the draft withdrawal agreement with the EU.

Hannan said that the government had agreed to enfranchise all EU citizens in the UK in a blanket deal, writing: “For what it’s worth, it will also significantly bolster the non-Tory electorate”.

At present EU citizens can vote in local elections in the UK, but most cannot vote in general elections, with the exception of nationals from Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus.

The prospect of giving EU citizens the vote in UK general elections after Brexit angered Leave-supporting MEPs who feared they would vote for other parties.

David Campbell Bannerman, a former UKIP MEP who defected to the Tories, replied: “It’s madness Dan - are we intent on damaging our own party’s vote?”

Amjad Bashir, another former UKIP defector to the Tories, said: “I think the party is pressing the self-destruct button. We’ve already lost the commonwealth vote and won’t win any votes from the new arrivals from the EU.”

Labour MP and Best for Britain champion Tulip Siddiq told BuzzFeed News: “The government's dogmatic Brexit agenda has hurt EU citizens and has caused untold upset and worry. The Tories should be in no doubt, EU nationals are angry and rightly so. I cannot see EU nationals backing Tory Brexiteers.”

Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “If this is true it’s wonderful news for the 3 million EU citizens who live, work, and form an integral part of our community in the UK. If they now hate the Tories, that is the Tory party’s fault. Regardless of electoral maths, it’s the right thing to do.”

An Opinium poll last year found 48% of the UK public backed extending voting rights to the 3 million EU nationals after Brexit.

Hannan, Campbell Bannerman, Bashir, and Flack were all approached for comment.

Flack told BuzzFeed News the proposal would be “mad” if identical reciprocal rights were not granted to Britons living in EU27 countries.

Campbell Bannerman said: “It is quite wrong and totally unnecessary to be extending votes in national elections rather than local elections to EU citizens. Locals absolutely, but why change the rules on national elections? Why is the government offering this?”

A Downing Street spokesperson said: “We’ve always said that the voting rights of both UK nationals living in the EU and EU nationals living in the UK is an important issue and that we’re committed to doing bilateral deals to achieve this.”

[Kaiserschmarrn]

But you cannot say the hate crime reports are the less reliable data set

They are unreliable because they have been increasing while the number of actual hate crimes has almost certainly been decreasing for years. I know you really want to believe that there has been a Brexit hate crime wave, but the fact that they have more granularity does not make them more reliable. Hate crime reports are also responsive to hate crime reporting by the media and calls for people to bring hate crimes to the attention of the police. Moreover, they are entirely based on subjective perception, as they are defined as "any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic".

The police’s ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ now stresses that the victim’s perception is the deciding factor in whether something is measured as a hate crime. No evidence is required. ‘Evidence of… hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident,’ the guidance says. ‘[The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor… the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.’ So you don’t need actual evidence to prove hate crime, just a feeling. The police are discouraged from asking for evidence. This is reflected in the policies of individual constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Procedure’ of the Surrey Police says ‘apparent lack of motivation as the cause of an incident is not relevant as it is the perception of the victim or any other person that counts’. No clear hateful motivation? Doesn’t matter. Record it as a hate crime anyway. Indeed, even when nothing hateful was said to the victim of a crime, still the police must record the incident as a hate crime if the victim perceives it to be so. The police guidance gives the example of a gay man being ‘sworn at and threatened’ by an assailant who said absolutely ‘nothing… about his sexual orientation’. If this gay man ‘perceives that he was targeted [because] he is openly gay’ then the police must ‘record this as a hate crime based on sexual orientation’. Think about this. If any gay man is shouted at in the street, by anyone, about anything, with no mention of sexuality, that can be recorded as an anti-gay hate crime. There’s no need for any proof whatsoever that anything anti-gay in sentiment was said or even intimated.

The unhinged subjectivity of the hate-crime definition becomes even clearer on the issue of what is called ‘secondary victimisation’. This is when a victim of an alleged hate crime feels that the police are not being sensitive enough and thus compound the ‘hate’ he or she has experienced. The police guidance says ‘secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens. It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way’. Again, this sanctification of perception over ‘what actually happens’ has trickled down into hate-crime policies of local constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Policy and Procedure’ of Greater Manchester Police says that if a hate-crime victim feels indifference from the police, this ‘victimises them a second time’ and ‘whether or not it is reasonable for them to perceive it that way is immaterial’. Truth, then, is ‘immaterial’.

That is, how hate crimes are recorded is so ridiculous on the face of it, it beggars belief that anybody takes these reports seriously at all.

And to top it off:

The number of hate crimes prosecuted last year dropped despite a spike in reported attacks in the wake of the EU referendum, new figures show.

So it looks like what has really happened is that the perception of hate crime incidence has gone up which is reflected in the police recordings. And who would be surprised by this, considering the media frenzy about "hateful Brexiters", etc?

What I like about our debate is that the nature of your argument is exactly like that of hate crime reports: it's only your perception that counts. And since you perceive there was a Brexit hate crime wave, it must be true, reality be damned.

[ingliz]

Spectator

An article written by a xenophobic brexiteer.

Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked, has repeatedly used his magazine to call for a repeal of the hate speech laws. Denying there is such a thing as a hate crime. You can catch him peddling his crap as a regular guest on Sky News 'Press Preview'.

reality be damned

Do you dismiss evidence of spikes in hate crime following terrorist attacks with equal alacrity?

There were a number of spikes in racially or religiously aggravated offences. These were in June 2016 [EU referendum result], March 2017 [Westminster Bridge attack], May 2017 [Manchester Arena bombing] and June 2017 [London Bridge and Finsbury Park mosque attacks].”

[redcarpet]

Rawnsley get it perfectly. The Bexiters on the Tory benches cocked up but don't have the guts to admit it!

Politics is often a case not of how you play the game, but how you place the blame. No one does this more assiduously and mendaciously than the Brexiters. Their game is approaching its climax and we can smell their fear that it is going to end very badly. This is why their fiercest energies are now directed to diverting culpability on to anyone’s shoulders but their own.

The person they have allotted to play the principal scapegoat is Theresa May. The prime minister will not be alone on their bogus charge list. They will finger others who supposedly sabotaged a beautiful idea, a cast that will include quisling civil servants, the treacherous Treasury, recalcitrant Remoaners, meddling judges and bullies in Brussels. They will all have roles in the self-exculpating blame game the Brexiters plan to play, but it is the prime minister who is being assigned the part of chief villain. Once, when she was foolishly following their script by painting herself into their “red lines”, they adored her. Now she will be Theresa the betrayer.

She has to be, for otherwise the betrayers of Britain would be the Brexiters themselves. Human beings are, by and large, reluctant to admit error and politicians struggle more than most of us. Confession of fault comes even more grudgingly when the mistake is as epic as Brexit. If you have founded a world view on a folly, if you have staked an entire career on the idea that quitting the European Union is a bright idea, then you would have to be exceptionally honest with yourself to confess that it has been a catastrophic mistake. The Brexiters are not capable of being honest with themselves – or anyone else. Since their self-conceit will not allow them to concede that the fault is in Brexit itself and the people who promoted it, blame must therefore be assigned elsewhere. There was a dream Brexit to be had – this will be their cry – if only it had not been chucked away in the chambers of Brussels. Had Mrs May been a smarter, tougher negotiator, Britain would now be looking at a sun-dappled future, rather than being asked to accept a dire deal that leaves virtually no one satisfied and nearly everyone unhappy.

Mrs May is in an impossible position, because a good Brexit never existed outside the glib fantasies of its proponents. There has never been a deal available that would allow the United Kingdom to continue to enjoy all the many benefits of its partnership with the European Union, as the Brexiters once promised, from the outside. As I’ve remarked before, any deal negotiated by any prime minister was bound to be suboptimal, because there are no terms more favourable to Britain than those that it currently enjoys as a member of the EU. There never was some tremendous bargain there to be struck if only Mrs May had had the wit to spot it. From the start, she has been choosing between varieties of the inferior. And where she has made mistakes, they have flowed not from betraying the hard Brexiters but from doing their bidding and seeking to appease them.

It is now nearly 30 months since the referendum, with fewer than five to go before Britain is due to leave. If there were some smart solution to Brexit, we are entitled to wonder why the Brexiters have never revealed it to the rest of us. They have been florid in their denunciations of Mrs May’s ideas without once producing a plan of their own that passes the most basic tests of viability. Michael Gove, purportedly the cleverest of their number, has been reduced to arguing that the cabinet should swallow whatever terms Mrs May can cobble together in the hope of having another go at some unspecified date in the future.

If there were a blindingly superior negotiating strategy, and the secret of it was known to Boris Johnson or to David Davis, you might think they would have shared it with the rest of the cabinet when one held the great office of foreign secretary and the other was in the influential role of Brexit secretary. Those positions are now held by Jeremy Hunt, a self-proclaimed convert to Brexit, and Dominic Raab, a protege of Mr Davis and always a believer. They have done no better than their predecessors at illuminating the path to El Dorado.

A clue to why they have failed was dropped in the past few days by Mr Raab. He is not a stupid man – the opposite, in fact. But like many of his fellow Brexiters, he can be astonishingly ignorant. He told a tech industry conference that he had only recently grasped how much of Britain’s commerce is dependent on free flows across the Channel between Dover and Calais. Britain is an island? No shit, Sherlock. This follows the admission by Karen Bradley that, prior to becoming Northern Ireland secretary, she “didn’t understand” that the territory had sectarian divisions, the most elementary fact about its politics. This had you wondering how Ms Bradley managed to get into her late 40s, and a chair in the cabinet, without ever watching a news bulletin or reading a book. It was from such boggling political, geographical and economic illiteracy that sprang the fatal fantasies that Brexit would be a piece of cherry-topped cake.

I'm a Leaver, but completely unsurprised by how this has unfolded with their fuckup and sniping. There was no draft plan presented in the referendum campaign because Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and the rest weren't serious!

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Brendan O'Neill

Attacking the person in order to avoid having to counter the argument is quite common. Are you contesting that hate crime is recorded as described in the article?

Do you dismiss

My argument applies in these cases too.

Do you want to comment on the number of prosecution and referrals to CPS?

• The volume of racially aggravated hate crime referrals from police increased slightly from 10,155 in 2015–16 to 10,198 in 2016–17 – an increase of 0.4%.
• The volume of completed prosecutions decreased from 12,295 in 2015–16 to 11,411 in 2016–17 – a decrease of 7.2%.

• The volume of racially aggravated hate crime referrals from police increased slightly from 10,198 in 2016–17 to 10,472 in 2017-18 – an increase of 2.7%.
• The volume of completed prosecutions decreased from 11,411 in 2016–17 to 11,061 in 2017-18 – a decrease of 3.1%

[ingliz]

in order to avoid having to counter the argument

Hate crime daily data, April 2016 to August '17 (with the dashed vertical line showing when the referendum occurred).




Time series intervention modelling shows that the referendum led to a statistically significant increase in hate crimes, potentially even larger than the Manchester and London terror attacks. The models show that the referendum increased hate crimes by 31 a day, or 638 in a month, depending which data is used. These estimates are remarkably robust to a large range of alternative specifications.

The evidence on all available data points to the referendum causing a significant increase in hate crimes.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Time series intervention modelling shows that the referendum led to a statistically significant increase in hate crimes, potentially even larger than the Manchester and London terror attacks. The models show that the referendum increased hate crimes by 31 a day, or 638 in a month, depending which data is used. These estimates are remarkably robust to a large range of alternative specifications.

The evidence on all available data points to the referendum causing a significant increase in hate crimes.

So we went from a 50% increase to around 20%. That's better.

However, his media analysis is totally inadequate. Neither is he looking at social media nor the content of the reporting - he's just using the volume of newspaper articles containing the phrase "hate crime". There's also nothing on police and other organisations' outreach efforts and encouraging reporting that usually accompany or come in the aftermath of such events.

Finally he doesn't address the lack of corresponding referrals to CPS or prosecutions.

But it's a start.

I also note that you have deliberately chosen to not answer questions or selectively ignored arguments throughout our conversation. I'm taking this as an acknowledgement that you don't have a rebuttal.

----------------------------------------------------

As for terror attacks, he gets conflicting results for some of them. He also doesn't seem to test whether the Lee Rigby murder, Charlie Hebdo, the Paris attacks or Parsons Green, all of which are noted in at least one of the Home Office reports, lead to an increase (although he uses three of them as controls).

[ingliz]

lack of corresponding referrals to CPS or prosecutions.

Given the nature of these offences, the difficulties in finding evidence, in identifying the suspect, or getting the victim’s support for further action, not many hate crimes result in a suspect being charged or a witness being summonsed to appear in court.

According to the police, around a half of all recorded hate crime is for public fear, alarm or distress, an offence which generally does not include crimes where physical violence is used or attempted against a victim. As physical violence is not used, offenders will routinely be cautioned.

When violence is used it is often difficult to prove motivation and these offenders are prosecuted for other offences.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Given the nature of these offences

Just a proportion of reported crimes is referred and prosecuted, sure, but that should also be true for the alleged increase. If there was a hate crime wave, you'd almost certainly see at least something in the referrals and prosecutions. On the other hand, if it was just a ripple, then you might not.

[layman]

The Labour Party, led by a man who is anathema to its values and, on Brexit, its members, continues to agitate for a general election rather than a second referendum. Corbyn and McDonnell know that the fastest and most likely route to power is the most disastrous Brexit possible and the bringing down of the government. It is the kind of power grab via Pyrrhic victory that only Boris Johnson was once considered shameless enough to want, but they are every inch his equal.

https://apple.news/AZPu_iwJ0TqefdnThlRcmXw

Sums up the Corbyn opportunistic approach. Classic commies to promote destruction and misery to serve their purposes.

[Nonsense]

A week is a long time in politics, particularly now that the issue of BREXIT is warming up from a simmer to the venting of steam by the politicians.

This week, Jo JOHNSON, plus Gordon BROWN, two more clowns that think they can cheat the system by having another referendum that hasn't delivered the mandate the people demanded in 2016.

At least Boris was right about the E.U, he is consistent as well, whereas his sibling uses only half of his brain, because the other half is dysfunctional & doesn't quite understand that, 'LEAVE' means LEAVE.

He, like so many pro-E.U MP's, as well as PM's, HATE DEMOCRACY, because it cramps their undemocratic style, I include Gordon BROWN, Tony BLAIR, John MAJOR in particular, they deny the people their say, even David CAMERON, when he saw that 'LEAVE' won, he resigned, refusing to invoke Article 50.

The above should always be ignored when they make pronouncements about BREXIT, because they have zero credibility politically.


As for Gordon BROWN, it's laughable that he is calling for some real democracy, by calling for another referendum, when he denied it to the people, by telling them that the Lisbon Treaty was merely an 'amendment', but which was, in reality, fundamentally moving towards the super-state that so many of us knew was in the making since the inception of the Common Market.

In 2008, Ireland voted in a referendum to not invoke the Lisbon Treaty, it then came under pressure from the E.U(BIG Brother)to 'think again', which it later did, but which they will live to regret.

For those who think that the E.U is not creating a super-state, do not know, or understand European history.

It is the successor to the failed project of it's originator, one Adolph HITLER.

[Albert]

[JohnRawls]

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1062438718345240579

We do not know the details but it seems it is something like UK is only leaving any kind of voting rights in the EU but retains everything else from the EU. A bit less paying to the EU but all rules are a must. I congrature UK for moving away from an Empire to a regular state to a colony of the EU. I guess this was one of the options, we do not mind.

[Albert]

We have May to thank for that. What a dumbass.

[B0ycey]

We have May to thank for that. What a dumbass.

Has anything been published yet?

Although as the EU custom standard rules are a redline in customless trade at the border we either accept that or we have checks at or near the border. The fact this doesn't seem to have sunk in yet for the Brexiteers says it all.

[Albert]

Um, have checks at the border.