Background

Stroud Against Racism (SAR) members spent last Sunday afternoon (1st June) at a gathering of some concerned residents of our wonderful district.

The stories shared helped set background and provide context to an abhorrent crime that was witnessed.

SAR was contacted to provide support for those involved.

The victim was set upon by five racist thugs and this attack was witnessed by children.

Police were called but, as far it was understood, the victim doesn't want to press charges.

Witnesses of this crime seem reluctant to report to the police.

Frankly, few folks of colour want anything to do with the police or don’t believe anything positive will come of it.

Other stories were told. Just last week, a woman wearing a hijab was verbally assaulted on a public footpath. I've also been made aware of another incident of excrement repeatedly being left on a doorstep.

Advice I offered at the gathering on Sunday was that it is imperative that these race/hate crimes are reported via the constabularies web site.

https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/ro/report/hate-crime/triage/v1/report-hate-crime/

Follow up

SAR are making contact with the victim and others to offer support.

SAR put out a statement (originally on Facebook). You may have to scroll.

I wanted to see if there was official data to support the feeling that we all had at the meeting; that there has been an increase in these race/hate crimes in recent times in Gloucestershire. Rhetoric is on the increase, even appalling political speeches reminiscent of 'Rivers of Blood'.

I discovered that national police data is of little use for checking changes in race/hate crime. These crimes would be coded as 'Violence Without Injury' or 'Violence Against The Person'. Besides this data is only available up until the end of March.

There was reassurance, by my data analyst contact at the constabulary, that locally these racially or religiously aggravated crimes are tagged as hate crime and this data can be interrogated. This is what the constabulary uses for their reports and scorecards.

Pursuing this further, with the constabulary via their web enquiry system, revealed that these race/hate crimes are only reviewed quarterly, whereas we know that 'dashboard' and data exception reports are circulated monthly to the Community Safety Partners (CSPs), of which Stroud District Council (SDC) is one.

I'd like to understand how reports of race/hate crime via https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/ro/report/hate-crime/triage/v1/report-hate-crime/ are treated? Irrespective of whether the original victim reports the crime. People witnessing such events are often impacted. I want to understand how/if these edge case incidents would be flagged in order to raise appropriate alerts back to local authorities so they can be aware of hotpots with the current reporting systems.

I received a detailed response:-

Any reports whereby it has been perceived by the victim, or any other person as being motivated by hostility, or hate towards a persons protected characteristic then it will have a hate flag recorded alongside it.

This is part of Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) depending on which characteristic it is pertaining to. There are five mandatory recording strands in law (of which race is one of them). Recording them is HO legal requirement.

As police we observe this information / data (a quarterly detailed data report is received by the Supt strategic lead) to ensure if any patterns or trends are occurring, so we can respond effectively and provide the right resources to the right areas, should a problem be identified.

We also use data to ensure we are meeting our obligations under the Police Race Action Plan (PRAP)

When I asked for confirmation of this potential three month lag, my request went unanswered.

Based on these enquiries I visited the SDC Community Services team over at Ebley Mill. Community Services manage our Neighbourhood Wardens. My concern was that data exceptions in race/hate crime are not coming through to SDC in a timely fashion. Clearly, this was also an opportunity to raise the incident, that was the focus of our concern on Sunday, in very general terms.

I was reassured that quarterly review is probably the right frequency, there are other areas and other teams also operating on quarterly schedules. There has to be a balance between review meetings and getting the job done with the available resources. Coming from the commercial sector I'm much more reactive, but I do understand the public sector constraints. Personally, I feel that this level of frequency is problematic for the black and brown members of our community.

It also became apparent that Community Services were not aware of our incident (maybe justifying my concerns?). They have their first meeting with the new Inspector at Stroud police station next week and this issue will be included on that agenda.

My e-mail of the 4th June to Police Community Liaison remains unanswered as of 9th June. (An informal complaint, CDS-14864-25-5300-000, has been submitted to the constabulary, 13th June)

It's clear that whilst there may not be an immediate response, eventually a picture will be constructed of these rate/hate crimes and ultimately resources will be allocated (either via the constabulary or a partner like SDC) to address if hotspots/upticks are identified.

I really do think it vitality important that we encourage people to report these race/hate crimes to the police via the constabulary web site.

Further update 13th June

I've now had contact with Community Liaison and a phone call with the new Stroud Inspector.

The Insp. was unhappy with the SAR Statement put out on social media. He would have appreciated contact. I pointed out that I had put in a request to Community Liaison which remained unanswered until just an hour or two prior to his call. It transpired that one person had been arrested and another some time later.

However, CCTV was not available and the victim did not want to press charges.

[Note: The most frequent outcome recorded for violent offences was “evidential difficulties as the victim does not support action”; this was the outcome for 31% of hate crime flagged violence against the person offences compared with 41% of non-hate crime flagged offences.]

The call was constructive and I'll feed back to SAR team other areas discussed.

Further meeting with SAR will follow in the next couple of weeks.

Further update 17th June

This subject was discussed at the Stroud Green group meeting 17th June.