Monday, October 23, 2017

UK's Hateful Hate-Crime Hub

by Douglas Murray
  • The problem is that "hate" is an ill-defined thing. What is hateful to one person may not be hateful to another. What is hateful in one context may not be hateful in another.
  • British authorities have gone along with a definition of hate-crime which allows the victim (real or perceived) to be the arbiter of whether an offence has been committed. This privilege allows a list of people who believe they have been "trolled" or "abused" online over their "race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity" to be arbiters as well as reporters of any and all such crimes. It is worth considering where this can end up.
  • Can anyone daring to express dissent against any popular view be reported for "trolling", "abusing" and "committing a hate crime"?
If you were a police officer what would you rather do: sit in the cold outside the house of a known extremist all day, or sit behind a desk with a cup of tea and scrolling through Twitter?
In May, just after the second of four Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK so far this year, British intelligence officials apparently identified 23,000 known extremists in the country. Of these, around 3,000 are believed to pose a present threat and are under investigation or active monitoring. The other 20,000 are categorised as posing a "residual risk". Due to the strain on resources, those 20,000 are not under constant observation.
This is a subject which, since the terrorist attack in May, has caused some agonising among the British public, not least because of the identities of the attackers. Khalid Masood, the Westminster Bridge and Parliament assailant, for instance, as well as Salman Abedi (the young man of Libyan heritage who carried out a suicide bombing outside a concert in Manchester) had both been on the radar of the British authorities -- both had been in the pool of people considered "former subjects of interest" but not an immediate threat. If the authorities had sufficient resources to follow everyone of interest, perhaps they would have been under observation at the time they were planning their attacks. Perhaps, also, a number of people killed in those attacks would still be alive.
The public, though, can be forgiving on these matters. They recognise that resources are not endless, that judgements have to be made and that departments have to choose where to allocate their budgets.
These choices are another reason why the public may judge dimly last week's announcement from the Home Office. Last week, Britain's Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced the creation of a new national police hub to crack down on hate-crime and "trolling" online. The unit -- which will apparently be run by specialist officers -- will assess complaints and work out whether they amount to a crime or not. They will also recommend removing material from online platforms if they -- at the official hate-crime hub -- deem such material "hateful".
Last week, Britain's Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced the creation of a new national police hub to crack down on hate-crime and "trolling" online. Pictured: Rudd (left) and Prime Minister Theresa May (center) meet Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Ian Hopkins on May 23, 2017 in Manchester, England. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)
The initiative claims to "improve support for victims and increase prosecutions of trolls who abuse others online over their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity." The Home Secretary has said:
"What is illegal offline is illegal online, and those who commit these cowardly crimes should be met with the full force of the law. The national online hate crime hub that we are funding is an important step to ensure more victims have the confidence to come forward and report the vile abuse to which they are being subjected."
The problem is that "hate" is an ill-defined thing. What is hateful to one person may not be hateful to another. What is hateful in one context may not be hateful in another. Might there one day be people who will claim to find material "hateful" when it is in fact merely material containing opinions with which they do not agree?
There are, quite rightly, already strong and appropriate provisions in place to prevent incitement, which is already a crime. But "hate" is different from incitement. Let alone "hate" when allowed to be diagnosed by such a broad range of people.
In Britain, there is an added complexity. Since 1999 and the publication of the Macpherson Report (into the racist murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence) in the UK, the British authorities have gone along with a definition of hate-crime which allows the victim (real or perceived) to be the arbiter of whether an offence has been committed. This privilege allows a list of people who believe they have been "trolled" or "abused" online over their "race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity" to be arbiters as well as reporters of any and all such crimes. It is worth considering where this can end up.
Someone who is transgender, for instance, may well be referred to unpleasantly by somebody online. If someone says they will kill him, that this is already a crime. What, however, if someone simply asks, for instance, what their chromosomes are? What if the "trans" person says he is unwilling to concede that chromosomes matter, and it is how he identifies them -- and that alone -- that matters. Can anyone daring to express dissent against this -- or any popular -- view be reported for "trolling", "abusing" and "committing a hate crime"? Will material which says that chromosomes matter be removed from the internet? It is hard to see how it could remain available, able as it is to cause such deep upset and potential cries of "hate".
Consider furthermore what might happen if someone -- anyone -- were to go along with the official line that Islamism is a major problem but differed with the official view -- which is that this Islamism has no connection with the peaceable and popular religion of Islam. What if they expressed this concern or thought? It is not inconceivable that somebody one day might? How then will the authorities view this? Is it hate? Can things that are hateful also be true? And if so, which do we prioritise: "hateful" facts or "hate-less" lies?
Alert to such criticisms, the relevant authorities have stressed that freedom of speech will still exist within in the UK. And the National Police Chiefs' Council lead for hate crime, assistant chief constable Mark Hamilton, has said: "We recognise and will uphold the right to free speech even where it causes offence -- but this does not extend to inciting hatred or threatening people."
In 2015-2016, a total of 62,518 hate crimes were recorded by forces in England and Wales. The Crown Prosecution Service says that it completed 15,442 hate crime prosecutions during that year. All of which happened at the same time as Khalid Masood, Salman Abedi and 20,000 other "known extremists" were allowed to walk free. And so the priorities of the authorities and the priorities of the public would appear to be dividing: a fact that can only have negative consequences -- whether they are "hateful" or not.

‘Extremist’ Parents Drive Christian Charity from Church School After Children Hear About ‘Sin’

A group of parents who withdrew their children from school assemblies, claiming concern over “extremist” content, have been accused of trying to “drive mainstream Christian teaching” out of a Church of England (CoE) primary school.

Dan Turvey, headmaster of St. John’s in Tunbridge Wells, announced that CrossTeach workers would no longer lead assemblies or lessons after some parents complained that teaching about sin had upset children at the religious primary school.
In a letter to parents, he noted that over a period of 15 years of involvement the school had never had any issues with CrossTeach, but in the “best interests of all concerned” ordered staff from the charity to stay away.
“A group of about 25 parents wrote a letter of complaint expressing concerns that the school were supporting extremist Christian teaching in assemblies held by CrossTeach and individuals from St John’s Church,” he wrote.
“I do not believe CrossTeach has done anything wrong,” the headteacher told pupils’ families, adding that the charity “do not deserve the tarnishing of their good name”, nor “allegations of extremism”, and will continue to run voluntary after-school activities.
Photo published for Drag Queens to Visit Primary Schools in Bid to End 'Intolerance' - Breitbart
On Wednesday, Kent Live reported that local vicar Reverend Giles Walter fingered protesting parents as the“extremists” in the argument, and not CrossTeach or St. John’s Church.
In a statement released to the newspaper, he said: “The behaviour of this small group of parents has hurled a hand grenade into a previously happy and harmonious environment.
“They seem determined to drive mainstream Christian teaching out of our church school: and it is they and not ourselves who should be charged with extremism and non-inclusiveness.”
The minister, who has led assemblies at St. John’s for 24 years, also pointed out that not once previously had he been asked to “withdraw, or apologise for” anything he had taught or spoken about at the school.
In his letter, Turvey lamented that the “online campaign” by complaining parents had damaged the reputation of the school, church, and CrossTeach in a “significant” way.
Photo published for Schools to Be Rated on How 'Transgender-Friendly' They Are
According to The Telegraph, one parent said she would prefer her children “learn about all religions”, telling the newspaper: “If you want them to be raised as Christians there are plenty of Sunday schools.
“No one minds Nativity plays and Bible stories but considering most of the parents at the school aren’t practising Christians I think the feeling is that it’s all too much.”
The Guardian reported another parent claiming her son was told last week at the school that “men can’t marry men”.
The statement prepared by parents opposed to CrossTeach said: “We recognise and respect the school’s Christian values but think there is a brand of Christianity that is abusing that respect.

“The basis of [our] complaint relates purely to concerns over the welfare and safeguarding of children who we believe are being exposed to potentially damaging ideology.”

Germany: Few Israelis are aware of how popular it is in Germany to compare Israel to the Nazis

Via Fathom (Gadi Taub):
Most Israelis assume – or at least they did until very recently – that Germany is a steadfast friend of Israel. They therefore find it hard to imagine that it would actively support organisations which contribute to the campaign to delegitimise Israel’s right to exist. But all that may have changed after the debacle in April between German Foreign Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 
Gabriel, on the occasion of an official visit for Holocaust Memorial Day, announced that he would meet the representatives of two radical left-wing civil society organisations – Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem. When Netanyahu said that if those meetings went ahead he would boycott the visit and refuse to meet Gabriel, many thought he was overreacting. Few, however, expected Gabriel to choose those two organisations over Israel’s prime minster (and acting foreign minister). And when he did, things began to appear in a new light. It no longer seemed that the German foreign minister made an honest mistake, not knowing how controversial these organisations were among Israelis. It appeared, instead, that he knew exactly what he was doing and that it was us, the Israeli public, who had made a mistake in our assumptions about German-Israeli relations. (...) 
Before the Gabriel affair few Israelis were aware of how popular it is in Germany to compare Israel to the Nazis. But one has to admit that it does have its own perverted psychological logic. If the Jews are now victimisers, not victims, does that not partially alleviate the terrible burden of German guilt? Does that not create a counterweight to the ever-present sense that the very existence of Jews is a permanent reminder of German sins? Does not the psychological need, if not exactly the argument, press towards some path of relief in blaming the victims? 
By refusing Netanyahu’s request and lending his support to organisations bent on demonising Israel, Gabriel made many wonder whether he was not in fact engaged in exactly this kind of politico-psychological game, which may appeal to his own constituency at home. But surely a German foreign minister on an official visit on the occasion of Holocaust Memorial Day, cannot be trying to manipulate symbols and emotions so as to switch victims and victimisers! Or could he? We were all ears now. 
So it was not overlooked here in Israel when, upon his return to Germany, Gabriel said to the Frankfurter Rundschau that the Social Democrats, his own party, were, along with the Jews, among ‘the first victims of the holocaust’ (this was later changed on the paper’s website from victims of ‘the holocaust’ to victims of ‘the Nazis’). So after using his state visit to look at Israel through the lens of organisations emphasising our sins, and thus classifying us as victimisers, was he now making himself the victim (by proxy), and not just any victim, but a victim of Nazism? Where was all this heading? It brought to mind the bitterly sarcastic quip attributed to Israeli psychiatrist Zvi Rex: ‘The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.’ Will we soon need to apologise for it to Gabriel? 
All this, we should note, was carried on in the guise of high handed – and decidedly condescending – rhetoric. Gabriel, on his own account, was helping to instruct us about the dangers of nationalism – ours – and the virtues of ‘European values,’ and democracy. But despite the immaculately humanitarian vocabulary, it was not hard to sense that something very sinister was afoot, since the minister’s interest in malignant nationalism and human rights seemed to be selective. He was apparently more interested in cases where Israel could be blamed. He had no plans to meet any civil society organisations which document Palestinian abuses of human rights, and his high-minded exhortations against Jewish nationalism were not matched by any criticism of the murderous sort of xenophobic nationalism which the Palestinians habitually – and institutionally – encourage in their people, especially their young. (Gabriel has since also hosted an Iranian religious leader who has called for the elimination of Israel, as part of an official Foreign Ministry event intended to harness religion for the cause of peace, the Jerusalem Post reported.) Of course Palestinian anti-Semitism is less useful as a ‘lesson of the holocaust’ if such a lesson is only intended to insinuate – to be sure, in a roundabout, never-explicit way – that the former victims have now become the culprits, thus helping to lighten Germany’s moral burden. 
Netanyahu was absolutely right to forcefully refuse to take part in any such shady game of insinuations. So perhaps we should thank Gabriel, after all, for providing the opportunity to bring all this home to Israelis. We can appreciate that the German past is indeed a difficult burden to carry, and we can even sympathise with the pains of sons who have to live with their fathers’ sins, but it is by no means the task of Jews to help relieve, much less shoulder, Germany’s historical guilt. So it is easy to see why Israelis found the whole affair rather nauseating. 
But even this was not yet all. Many Israelis dismiss the shrill rhetoric of Netanyahu’s right-wing government, in which complaints about how European money is funnelled through the Palestinian Authority (PA) to support terrorism can get lost in the general air of paranoid-seeming rhetoric. But this complaint too now received more attention when, as fate would have it, the US recently became quite firm about the PA’s support of the families of terrorists. The PA under Mahmoud Abbas habitually calls Palestinian terrorists ‘martyrs’ and offers generous financial aid to their families. Gabriel, who was so particular about Israel’s moral conduct, had nothing to say about how German money is used in that way. But we do. And we should hold all donors accountable if they allow their money to be used to provide incentives for terrorism. Germany is a good place to start, and Netanyahu was right to highlight all this. 
According to press reports in Israel which followed Gabriel’s visit, Germany denied entry to Turkish officials of Recap Erdogan’s government when they wanted to meet with German citizens of Turkish origin. Germany feared representatives of the Turkish state would radicalise members of its own citizenry. So when all was said and done it seemed like Netanyahu’s treatment of Gabriel was actually mild in comparison. Perhaps it should be less mild in the future.
read more

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Sultan Erdogan and the New Janissaries

By Alex Alexiev

Though Western Europe and Washington are reluctant to fess up to this unfortunate fact, Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long ago given up even the pretence of being a democratic polity and is openly pursuing policies detrimental to democracy, the rule of law and Western security considerations. In short, Turkey has become an Islamist dictatorship every bit as inimical to Western interests as Iran, except for being allowed by the West to maintain the charade that it is still a member of NATO and the Western community of nations. This is a dangerous charade that will inevitably come back to haunt us. For the reality is that Erdogan the Islamist has ambitions that go beyond Turkey and even the Middle East.  Well known for his admiration for the Ottomans, Erdogan imagines himself as the leader of a new Ottoman Empire based on an Islamized Turkey, but exerting its influence far beyond. Many would dismiss this as an unrealistic pipe dream, and it probably is just that ultimately. But in pursuing it vigorously, Erdogan has already done much damage both in Turkey and abroad. Suffice it to say that Turks who had lived in Germany and the Netherlands for decades, voted for Erdogan in greater percentages (60% and 70% respectively) than voters in Turkey itself in the last referendum.  
The key to spreading Erdogan’s Islamist message is an organization called Diyanet, a Turkish directorate for religious affairs that is directly subordinated to him. Few if any Western leaders have ever heard of it, despite its importance. It was originally set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924 for the purpose of training imams for the mosques, but more importantly, it was tasked with preventing the radicalization of Turkish Islam. The type of education received in these madrassa-like institutions, called imam-hatip schools, was considered second-rate and did not qualify their graduates for the university or government work. At the time of Erdogan’s takeover of the government in 2002, there were 450 imam-hatip schools with some 60,000 students. Most of them were the sons of poorly-educated yet devout Muslims, which Erdogan, himself the product of such a school, considered prime islamization cadres. And so, after neutralizing the Turkish military by means of bogus but ultimately effective show trials, Erdogan set about to build up and promote an army of pious imam-hatip graduates devoted to him, not unlike the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, who considered themselves the slaves of the sultan alone. Here it must be mentioned that these madrassas as well as the mandatory religious education curriculum in Turkey is highly discriminatory to the extent that it teaches exclusively the Sunni Hanafi school of Muslim jurisprudence, which is not practiced by the large populations of Alevis and the Kurds, who follow the shafi’i madhab, not to mention the millions of secular Turks.    
Appointing a zealous Islamist (who considered Israel a terror organization on a par with ISIS) to lead the Diyanet in 2010, Erdogan removed all career obstacles previously faced by imam-hatip graduates,  indeed began treating them preferentially for government work and in the military, while providing  the Diyanet with massive amounts of money and islamizing the curriculum to exclude evolution. This promptly made these schools a hugely desirable career choice for aspiring Islamists. And so, by 2015, there were 1961 imam-hatip schools with more than 1.2 million students and a budget of $2 billion.
These exorbitant numbers clearly beyond the needs of the 85,000 Turkish mosques reveal Erdogan’s ambitions in both staffing his government and the military with reliable Islamists, and also his long-term agenda to export his Islamist agenda to Turkish and Muslim diaspora communities in Europe, the Balkans and beyond. Few people realize that after the relative retreat of Saudi efforts to finance radical Islamic projects in the West, Turkey is increasingly the key actor funding the radicalization of European Muslims. It is well positioned to do that due to the large Turkish communities that immigrated to Western Europe as gastarbeiter in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the significant numbers of native Turkish and/or Turkic populations in the Balkans and Central Asia. Many if not most of the imams sent by Diyanet to serve in Europe, as a rule, do not speak the local language and barely know the societies in which they find themselves, nor are they encouraged to get to know them. The one mantra that Turkish officials repeat ad nauseum is that assimilation is wrong, or as Erdogan put it himself “a crime against humanity.” And it may be working. Sevral recent studies have shown that 3rd generation Turks in Germany are no better integrated than those of the first.
Nor are these are the only disturbing news. Information from a number of Western European countries has come that Diyanet and mosque officials work closely with the Turkish intelligence organization, MIT, to spy on fellow Turks on behalf of the Ankara government. One German source revealed that 6000 MIT spies are active in the mosques, while the Dutch head of the Diyanet admitted publicly to have engaged in spying. There are further Turkish efforts to build a number of mega mosques in places where there are few Muslims, like Bucharest and Budapest, as well as attempts in both Eastern and Western Europe to set up parties designed to serve the Turkish strongman. It is not likely that they will stop before the West finally understands that Islamist Turkey is not a friend and begins to act accordingly.

SENDING MIXED MESSAGES IN SWEDEN: Inviting immigrants with one hand, expelling them with the other.

Even before the so-called refugee crisis began in 2015, immigrants formed a larger percentage of Sweden's population than of any other country in Europe. During this current wave, Sweden, with under ten million inhabitants, has taken in hundreds of thousands more. Though most of them claim to be in need of asylum, the majority actually aren't. Many claim to be children, but they look as if they're twenties or even older. 
Sweden has been an easy touch for a generation or more, but the Swedes have never looked more like a bunch of self-destructive suckers than they do now. 
At the same time, a growing number of these formerly docile folks are finding their voices. They're openly expressing support for the non-establishment Sweden Democrat Party, which demands severe limits on immigration. Even the mainstream Moderates, who can feel the Sweden Democrats breathing down their necks, are now talking about imposing serious restrictions. At a conference weekend before last, the Moderates actually voted to challenge the current EU system, whereby asylum seekers are admitted into the superstate before their applications are approved. The Moderates would rather set up “safe places” outside the EU where those asylum seekers can cool their heels while those applications are reviewed. Finally! 
And that's not all. Today Sweden takes in heaven knows how many people from the Muslim world – some as refugees, others through “family reunification” – and hands them permanent residency right off, permitting them to go straight onto the welfare rolls and stay there for a lifetime. The Moderates now want to issue temporary residency to these people, who would only be awarded permanent status – and, eventually, citizenship – after proving their ability to support themselves and their families. In addition, the Moderates have proposed several other reforms, such as language tests and limits on social-service disbursements per household. Again: finally!
A bit more good news: already, of the hundreds of thousands of self-styled asylum seekers who've come to Sweden since 2015, over sixty thousand have seen their asylum applications rejected – and about half of that sixty thousand have already left the country voluntarily. But what about the other half? The numbers are so overwhelming that the chief of the border police, Patrick Engström, confessed the other day that he has neither the resources nor the legal authority to carry out all the necessary deportations. 
Part of the problem is that many of these rejected asylum seekers are nowhere to be found. Where are they? They've likely disappeared into Sweden's sprawling urban Muslim enclaves and are being sheltered by relatives or other coreligionists. Many gave fake names when they entered the country in the first place (a common practice) and are now presumably living under their real names or other fake ones. Doubtless many of them are already raking in welfare benefits. 
OK, you say, but at least there's a degree of reform. True – but not everybody working for the Swedish government, alas, has gotten the memo. Even as the country's citizens are calling for limits on immigration – especially from the Muslim world – its embassies in Arab capitals have done something that seems borderline nuts: namely, they've packed their websites with material designed to encourage Arab immigration to Sweden. In delectable detail, they explain to residents of Arab countries how much money may well be poured into their pockets if they pack up their tents and head north. (For example, the website of the embassy in Amman explainsto potential migrants that if they move to Sweden they'll get “free school,” “free health care,” even “free public transport” if they're pushing a baby carriage. If they have, say, six kids, they'll get $1285 a month, free and clear.)  Nobody in the Swedish government, apparently, thought there was anything odd about these counterproductive come-ons until P. M. Nilsson, political editor of Dagens Industri (Sweden's answer to the Wall Street Journal), furrowed his brow. The embassy sites, he pointed out, were telling prospective immigrants a lot about the rights they'd have in Sweden, but nothing about their responsibilities. 
While the embassies were supposedly encouraging Arabs to come to Sweden to work, they were focusing on the freebies immigrants could collect – up to $4000 a month, tax-free – without lifting a finger. They were making it clear that Arabs could hop on a plane to Stockholm and spend their remaining years living like royalty – without ever bothering to learn the language, to get an education, or (heaven forfend!) to find a job. Indeed, the embassy sites did an absolutely terrific job of making Sweden look like a great place not to work at all. 
The lesson apparently being that even when Sweden thinks it's trying to lure productive people to its shores, it can't help waving bags of cash in their faces. 
That's not the only new government policy that's entirely at odds with the Swedish people's eagerness for immigration reform. Last week, SVT reported that under new guidelines established by Stockholm's City Council, children who are in the country illegally are eligible for financial assistance. Which means that some of those people whom Patrick Engström, head of the border police, is charged with deporting but is having trouble rounding up can register to collect regular welfare payments. 
To sum up: some ordinary citizens of Sweden are desperately trying to steer the ship of state away from the shoals. But all too many government functionaries in that cuckoo country just can't shake off the habit of dispersing dough. One gets the impression that in the minds of some of these folks, the Swedish nation is defined by nothing more or less than its status as a generous-to-a-fault welfare state. To pull back on the largess, one gathers, would plunge them into a full-blown identity crisis. 
Who am I, if I'm not constantly forking over cash to foreigners? Who cares if they're technically eligible or not? The less eligible they are, in fact, the more virtuous that makes me for shelling out all those kronor. I subsidize, I therefore I am. That mentality is one thing that needs to be quashed if Sweden is to stand any chance of saving itself.

UK: Claims Gunman Has Taken Hostages at Bowling Alley in Nuneaton

Warwickshire Police are dealing an “ongoing incident” at Bermuda Park, Nuneaton.

Eyewitnesses report that a man with a sawn-off shotgun has taken hostages at a bowling alley in the retail park, which also contains a cinema, restaurant, and children’s soft play area, but police have yet to confirm this. They have advised people to avoid the area.
Officers are currently dealing with an ongoing incident at Bermuda Park, . Please avoid the area.
No description of the alleged gunman has been issued, nor any details of any demands or suspected intentions. Some parts of the retail park are on lockdown, some parts have been — at least partially — evacuated.

Footage uploaded to social media and rebroadcast by Sky News shows a significant police presence around the park, with bystanders reporting armed officers and a police helicopter on the scene.

UK Police Slammed for ‘Propaganda’ Video Promoting Islam

British police have been slammed for using public resources to produce a 12-minute video promoting Islam in the UK.

“Muslims have a long, shared history with Britain. It stretches back over a thousand years,” claims Hafez Abdusammad Mulla of the Al-Imdaad Foundation at the opening of the “educational” film.
Released by Lincolnshire Police on YouTube for Hate Crime Awareness Week, the video is ostensibly designed to fight “hate crime” and seeks to show Islam and Islamic culture in an attractive light.
“Islam is all about virtues and values of charity, doing noble deeds, helping those less fortunate than you,” claims Mac Chishty, a police commander for “community engagement” with London’s Metropolitan Police.
Members of the public took to social media to question why the force is using taxpayers’ money to proselytize for Islam, asking if police will also be promoting other religions and ideologies.
“Perhaps your officers could tour schools, telling pupils about the wonderful work that the Church does all year, every year, and how hard its members work for their communities? And then you can do the same for the Jews, the Sikhs, and everybody else,” suggestedPenny Bunn on Facebook.
“I’d like to know how much this propaganda piece cost to produce,” added Nicholas Street.
“[The police are] always pleading poverty when it comes to actually policing the streets and reducing crime but seem to have money to promote Islam.”
An Office for National Statistics (ONS) bulletin reported this week revealed a 13 per cent increase in recorded crime in the year ending June 2017, with the total number of offences surpassing five million for the first time a decade.
The Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police, Bill Skelly, admitted on the same day as the video’s release that they are facing a “serious challenge” over funding as figures show a double-digit rise in violent crimes in the area.
Reports in the Daily Mail this weekend suggest some UK forces are so short of cash that some Remembrance Day parades might be cancelled this year, because the police can’t afford to meet health and safety standards.
Despite cutbacks and surging levels of crime, Lincolnshire Police defended the video and hit out its critics. Deputy Chief Constable Craig Naylor told the Lincolnite: “I am really disappointed in some of these comments.
“I am very committed to reducing hate crime and what we aimed to do, during hate crime awareness week, is to show a different side to Islam and tackle misconceptions and myths.
“A person who is Muslim can also be a British citizen, entitled to the same respect and protection of the law as everyone else.

“Our job is to engage with communities and this video is a method of overcoming barriers to getting information across.”