Matthew Parris
Already a subscriber? Log in
I have tried very hard to construct the argument in favour of this advice to the police. It isn’t open and shut, and you do end up having to decide where to draw the line. If we were to learn that half a dozen allegations of brutal rape by a particular man had been made to the police by different women on different occasions, but that in no case was there sufficient evidence to proceed, we might be outraged to hear that no record was kept. But in my correspondent’s case I’m driven to the conclusion that the nub of the injustice is to be found in the term ‘hate incident’ itself, and the injustice is aggravated by the use of the word ‘victim’ when ‘complainant’ is the right term.
There is certainly one sense of the word ‘incident’, in which the fact that one person alleges that another person’s ‘hostility’ was motivated by hate/racism/homophobia does mean that the accused individual has — by definition — been involved in a hate/racism/homophobia ‘incident’. In this sense I can involve you in a dangerous-driving incident simply by accusing you of dangerous driving. But where the police see no reason at all to conclude that Mr Jones has behaved hatefully just because Mrs Smith says he has, then to shackle the word ‘hate’ to the word ‘incident’ and enter the conjunction against Mr Jones’s name in a police record is surely misleading. To report another for hatefulness is itself evidence of ‘hostility’ to them, so on that reading Mrs Smith herself (should Mr Jones report her) has been involved in a hate incident too.
And if that’s the law, what shall I do about the following statements — all expressed publicly, not just in a private letter? They’re from online Spectator readers, Times readers or Twitter. All could, if the police wished, be tracked down.
‘Is Parris a two-faced commie? I suggest he is’; ‘What a twisted mind’; ‘So an aversion to sodomising teenagers counts against you now, does it?’; ‘Good luck with the moon shot. One way ticket?’; ‘Pure unadulterated drivel. Why oh why did I read it?’; ‘Crowdfund to pay for a hitman to kill Matthew Parris, anyone?’
‘Matthew Parris is a twat embarrassed by his heritage’; ‘In the Spectator Matthew Parris likened [a face mask] to a codpiece, which … is quite appropriate for such a colossal dickhead’; ‘The only reason I keep my Speccie subscription is for Shriver, Liddle, and for the comments calling [Parris] a c—’. There is much more in this vein, and in far worse language. And I love this: ‘As someone whose voice sounds like one of those caring dotty vicars of Ealing comedies, a soft wetness you could grow cress on, I wouldn’t critics [sic] others MP.’
Comes with the territory of being a columnist: water off a duck’s back. Besides, such commentary has been genuinely useful to me in researching the psychopathology of Brexit — but my point is serious, and it’s this. I’ve not the least desire to land these poppets, literally thousands of them, with a police record. But if I tried I could. Something is going wrong with this area of law.
Because you read about crime
Also by Matthew Parris
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in