Talk:College of Policing

Non-crime hate incidents

Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I boldly deleted a recently-added item about the college's guidance on non-crime hate incidents. The original author @Telanian7790 reverted my deletion, so now we can discuss.

Simply put I believe that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. This is a single incident of the college's guidance being challenged. Even though in this case it was challenged in the high court, its guidance is constantly changing based on feedback from the courts and police forces. This was not some spectacular defeat for the police for involved, nor for the college, it was simply a judge ruling that the guidance was incorrect / disproportionately strict. Man challenges police, challenge is upheld, police policy to be changed as a result. Not news. Nothing worthy of reporting.

Obviously though that's my opinion and I hope that Telanian7790 will add his/her opinion too. Would be interested to see what others think in order to gain consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The second paragraph above is all your opinion. Not how this has been reported in reliable sources. For the national body that leads on policing policy to lose a case in the courtof appeal to an individual is significant. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That is certainly arguable and it seems to be a judgement call: I would tend to include provided that the extent of coverage is wp:due.

But 10mmsocket was certainly correct to revert Telanian7790's addition of and irrespective of whether the underlying complaint is even rational. when that directly contradicts the citation, which says "There is nothing in the guidance about excluding irrational complaints. There is a bit of a double-negative problem here so I assume that it was an inadvertent misreading.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No JMF, I am afraid you are the one misreading the source. Let's break this down - the source (which quotes the judge directly) tells us that "There is nothing in the guidance about excluding irrational complaints." In other words, the guidance said nothing positive about what do with irrational complaints. In particular, it did not positively say they should be excluded.

However, we know that the guidance was to record all such complaints. Accordingly, if a complaint was made (which happened to be irrational) the guidance was to record it merely because it was a complaint (with the fact of its irrationality being a completely irrelevant consideration).

In other words, the guidance was to record all such complaints, irrespective of whether they were rational: precisely what my text said. 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telanian7790 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And again your are interpreting what the source says. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. Of course I have ‘interpreted’ the source. That is what Wikipedia is based on: taking reliable sources and faithfully and accurately interpreting them.

So here’s the important question. Is my interpretation wrong? If you think it is, then please give us what you say is the correct interpretation of the source. Telanian7790 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please be civil - "What a bizarre response" is not civil. See JMF's comment above and Hippo43's. You are interpreting sources - your personal analysis is not allowed. Please don't just repeatedly add the same old text over and over again. There is clearly not consensus for your edit. 10mmsocket (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that emotional and unconstructive outburst.

Now, why don't you do what I invited you to do on 15 February: engage with the substance of what I am saying and explain why my interpretation of the source is wrong. There is no 'personal analysis' going on here - at least not intentionally. I am simply noting what the source tells us as a matter of basic English comprehension and seeking to place that into the article.

So, over to you. Why am I wrong.Telanian7790 (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the High Court found that the guidance of the College "serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate" but 'the guidance was wrongly used and it had a "chilling effect"' whilst also saying there was "too much emphasis on the perception of transphobic hostility". Harry Miller: Legal victory after alleged transphobic tweets With all of that my perspective is that it would be better to say something along the lines of "The College has advised police forces to record all 'non-crime hate incidents' irrespective of whether there is any evidence of a crime in an attempt to address under reporting. The lack of guidance about how to handle irrational complaints in the advice caused the advice to be incorrectly used by...".

It would be even better to provide context around the advice including relationship to the 1993 racist murder of Stephen Lawrence and under-reporting of certain acts of hate.Gusfriend (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gusfriend. Your draft comes across as a more sophisticated version of what I was attempting to do. Your suggestion on giving more of the background also seems sensible. I#ve taken your draft and thus expanded upon it as follows:

"The College has advised police forces to record all 'non-crime hate incidents' irrespective of whether there is any evidence of a crime in an attempt to address under reporting. This guidance stemmed from the 1999 Macpherson report, which had found the Metropolitan Police to be instiutionally racist and had recommended that such non-crime incidents be recorded. [1] However, the lack of guidance about how to handle irrational complaints in the advice caused the advice to be incorrectly used by the Humberside Police who, in January 2019, recorded a non-crime hate incident against an individual, on the basis of a complaint which the High Court subsequently found the police had accepted without any critical scrutiny or assessment for accuracy.[2] The High Court further found that the said individual's conduct was lawful and that the complainant had been operating 'on the outer margins of rationality'.[3]"

That can then be followed, I suggest, by the current sentence giving the Court of Appeal's 2021 judgment.

How does that sound?Telanian7790 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me but I would leave it for a few days to allow others to comment as I have no doubt that you will get some useful input.

In terms of notability (as it was raised earlier), my personal view is that the fact that they developed a policy to attempt to deal with institutional racism in the Met (and more widely) is something that is notable regardless of how it played out. If you wanted to amplify the notability you could add a sentence or two about the release of the guidance from 2014. My 30 second search found https://www.report-it.org.uk/college_of_policing_publishes_new_hate_crime_gu but I am sure that there are better options out there. The guidance has a renewed notability due to the publicity that it has received due to the court case. Gusfriend (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the previously agreed version of the page, which Hippo has unilaterally removed - twice - without discussion on this talk page. I would invite Hippo to actually engage in discussion here before making any further changes.Telanian7790 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with @Hippo43 - there was no consensus for your version. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to note for the record since making my post above, Hippo has again unilaterally edited the page, ignoring my request that he engage in discussion here - again, in blatant violation of BRD. I renew my request that he follow the rules and enage in discussion here.

10mmsocket, your contribution is unhelpful. As is clearly set out above, discussion took place throughout February 2022. Regrettably, instead of engaging constructively in those discussions, you instead chose to make attacks against me, and even made a false complaint against me (which the administrators quite rightly dismissed). You and Hippo, for whatever reason, did not further participate in the subsequent discussion. You were free to. You did not.

If you want to engage in good faith on the issues, then great. Lets hear your constructive criticism of the text as it stands and make progress. However, what you cannot do is run away from the discussion and then come back and unilaterally impose your views on everyone else nearly two months later in blatant violation of BRD. That is not right.Telanian7790 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not a violation of BRD. You added it, we removed it. We're discussing it again - because there was no consensus reached. Repeatedly calling me unhelpful is not assuming good faith in fact it is becoming a personal attack. I restate - there is no consensus among editors here for your addition. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I also wish to note for the record that 10mmsocket is now also editing in blatant violation of BRD. I am unable to correct this myself since if I do, I will probably be deemed to be edit warring. Thus, I simply note that fact here and will leave it to others to correct his rule-breaking.

I also note, with alarm, that 10mmsocket also appears to be renewing his false accusation that I am engaging in personal attacks. I am not going to rise to this. Go and make a second complaint to the administrators if you wish. I'll let them deal with it, just as they dealt with the first complaint..

I now turn to the substantive issues. This is the latest version of the text, arrived at through consensus back in February:

"In 2014, the college advised police forces to record all 'non-crime hate incidents' - incidents that are perceived to be motivated by hostility but are not criminal offences[8] - irrespective of whether there is any evidence of a crime in an attempt to address under reporting. This guidance stemmed from the 1999 Macpherson report, which had found the Metropolitan Police to be instiutionally racist and had recommended that such non-crime incidents be recorded.[9] However, the lack of guidance about how to handle irrational complaints in the advice caused the advice to be incorrectly used by the Humberside Police who, in January 2019, recorded a non-crime hate incident against an individual, on the basis of a complaint which the High Court subsequently found the police had accepted without any critical scrutiny or assessment for accuracy.[10] The High Court further found that the said individual's conduct was lawful and that the complainant had been operating 'on the outer margins of rationality'.[11]" In December 2021, the Court of Appeal ruled that this guidance was unlawful and constituted a "chilling effect ... on the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression"

What do you say the problems are with this text, and how can we improve it?Telanian7790 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Telanian, please stop all this crap. There is no "blatant violation" of anything, and no "rule breaking". BRD is not a policy.

Regarding your proposed text above, it is inaccurate, undue weight, and very badly written. It should not be in the article at all.

Pretending that you had consensus for your addition is dishonest. Three editors had disagreed with your view already, and had pointed out your misunderstanding. Just because they did not react to your last proposal does not mean you had consensus for it. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Invited by the bot) Between the nature of the question and the discussions on it, it would take a long time to get the full perspective, so I can only comment without that. If it was covered in sources and had some prominence, I'd lean towards including. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  The RFC is at the bottom of the page, including the diff in question, not this section. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Defunct RfC

Defunct RfC. El_C 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
How, if at all, should this article report the recent legal challenge to the College's former guidance as to the reporting of non-crime hate incidents? Telanian7790 (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I am opening this RFC per the suggestion of El C at 21:20 today. In short, we appear to have reached an impasse as to how, if at all, to report this matter in this article. If you're not aware of the underlying story, I list below three sources that reported what happened (which were previously in the article): 1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/02/policing-sex-and-gender-debate-worrying-freedom-of-expression 2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202 3. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/being-offensive-is-part-of-british-culture-says-free-speech-campaigner-harry-miller-7b065t0b2 In short, as you will see from the discussion above, I thought we had reached consensus on this issue back in February. On 20 February, I proposed the following text, which incorporated the above sources: "The College has advised police forces to record all 'non-crime hate incidents' irrespective of whether there is any evidence of a crime in an attempt to address under reporting. This guidance stemmed from the 1999 Macpherson report, which had found the Metropolitan Police to be instiutionally racist and had recommended that such non-crime incidents be recorded. However, the lack of guidance about how to handle irrational complaints in the advice caused the advice to be incorrectly used by the Humberside Police who, in January 2019, recorded a non-crime hate incident against an individual, on the basis of a complaint which the High Court subsequently found the police had accepted without any critical scrutiny or assessment for accuracy. The High Court further found that the said individual's conduct was lawful and that the complainant had been operating 'on the outer margins of rationality'." As you will see, Gusfriend approved the above text, while everyone else remained silent. I waited for about four days (per Gusfriend's suggestion) and then inserted the above into the article on 25 February. There it stayed for over a month until one of the former contributors, Hippo43, suddenly and unilaterally removed it without discussion or warning at 23:34 on 29 March. Gusfriend reverted him at 23:47 (and, incidentally, invited him to open an RFC). In violation of BRD, Hippo43 ignored him and immediately removed the text a second time (at 00:00 on 30 March). As you will see above, when I became aware of this (today), I invited Hippo43 to comply with BRD and to discuss the matter. Hippo43 ignored me and continued to remove the text from the article without discussion. He was then supported in this by 10mmsocket (also an original contributor), who continued to remove the text from the article in violation of BRD - but without engaging in substantive discussion on the talk page. We thus appear to be at an impasse. I am perfectly willing - and always have been - to have reasoned discussion on this topic. However, Hippo43 and 10mmsocket appear to have decided that they just will not allow this text into the article in any form, and so will not engage in any constructive discussion on the topic. Hippo43's comment on this talk page at 21:47 speaks for itself. He (baselessly) accuses me of dishonesty and makes further bare assertions that the text is inaccurate, of undue weight and badly written. But he nowhere states what precisely is inaccurate and what, if anything, is given undue weight. Nor does he propose any alternative text that could correct any parts that are badly written. In short, he offers no constructive criticism that I, or anyone else, can work with. One final point. It is - obviously - ok if you think my text is wrong. Reasoned criticism is fine. I do not have a problem with that. I don't think I am wrong here, but if I am shown to be wrong in reasoned argument - fine. However, what I am frankly finding very frustrating here is the aforementioned editors' apparent blanket refusal to engage in constructive discussion, and to abide by BRD. When I started here, I was quite rightly banned because I did not understand (and did not adhere to) BRD. I've made the effort to try to work out how things are done here, and I find it very frustrating that more experienced editors than me appear not to be making the same effort.Telanian7790 (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC) You are not getting off to a good start with your failure to assume good faith WP:AGF and borderline personal attacks. I suggest you reword the RFC before other editors come along to make any substantive comments. At this point it doesn't matter what has happened in the past. It's only about discussion of new content for the article. What you fail to do above is give any reason why the proposed content should be included - remembering the advice of the admin who protected the article yesterday which was Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC) There are two issues here: 1. Should the story be covered at all? 2. If so, what should we say about it? As to 1, I agree with the simple point made above by Hippo43 on 11 January (which you have at no time challenged): "For the national body that leads on policing policy to lose a case in the courtof appeal to an individual is significant." As to 2, all I can do is offer my proposed text with sources - which I have done above - and invite comment. You can see above how that text was arrived at. Gusfriend offered his own draft, with reasoning, on 18 February. I accepted his reasoning and expanded upon it accordingly with reasoning, resulting in my 20 February suggestion, which achieved consensus at that time. I remind you that you and Hippo43 are the ones who have been trying to remove this text from the article apparently without debate or discussion. So over to you. You have the text. You have the sources. You have the reasoning. So I ask you again. If you consider it flawed, then please tell us what the problems are and how, if at all, we can resolve them.Telanian7790 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC) You still have the insults and the history in the RFC. Again, the RFC should be just about content. Please amend it. Then we can discuss. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC) And there you have it. That is the problem. Every time you are invited to address the issues - and state what you consider to be wrong with the text itself - you will not do it. Every time, you evade and ignore the issue. That is why we are at an impasse here. That is why this RFC is necessary.Telanian7790 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I will respond when you make the RFC about the content. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC) What, if anything, is wrong with the text I have proposed? Even if my conduct is wrong, as you think it is, there is no reason why you cannot answer that question. I invite you to do so.Telanian7790 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I explained my objections above. I agree with 10mmsocket that this RFC must focus on content. // Hippo43 (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Revise the RFC to be *just* about the content and I will comment. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 10mmsocket, I have now asked you to comment eight times now - on 15 February 2022, 18 February 2022, 20 February 2022, 13 April 2022 at 16:31, 13 April 2022 at 17:02, 13 April 2022 at 22:16, 14 April 2022 at 08:40, and 14 April 2022 at 11:06 - all of which are set out above on this talk page. The first five of those pre-date the RFC. It is now perfectly clear that you will simply not answer the question, no matter how it is put to you. But I invite you to prove me wrong. For the ninth time, I ask you, what, if anything, is wrong with the text I have proposed? Hippo43, thank you for attempting to answer the question. The problem howver, as I explained above at 22:16, is that you offer only bare assertion. You say that the text is inaccurate and includes undue weight. Ok, fair enough. That is your view. But I disagree. Can you tell us what, if anything, is inaccurate; and what, if anything, is being given 'undue weight'. If you give specific examples of what you actually object to, then we can probably make progress here.Telanian7790 (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC) And again I ask you to stop making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. Change the RFC to be about the content not your editing history. And again, remember WP:ONUS means you're the one who has to convince others why content is worthy of inclusion, not others to show it isn't. But please, fix the RFC first. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Telanian, I also said it was very badly written. The problem, as 10mmsocket has explained to you several times, is that you have been uncivil. To be clear, I object to all of it. It's unnecessary, inaccurate in several ways, does not reflect what sources say, makes inferences that are not in the sources, and every sentence is written badly. As 10mmsocket has already explained, the onus is on you to achieve consensus for the change you want. You haven't done that. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you for that Hippo43. However, you haven't answered the question, so I'll try again. Firstly, what do you say is inaccurate? This is not difficult or a trick question. If the text contains inaccuracies, then you should be able to identify them. Specifically, you should be able to say "the text states [x] but the sources in fact state [y]." I say there are no inaccuracies, and that is why you cannot identify any when pressed. If I am wrong, then I invite you to prove me wrong. Secondly and similarly, what inferences does the text make that are not in the sources. Similarly, you should be able to say "the text states [z] which does not follow from the sources." Again, I say the text does not make any false inferences and that is why you cannot identify any. If I am wrong, then I invite you to prove me wrong. The text not reflecting what the sources say appears to be another way of saying the above. But again, for completeness, please give us any further specific examples demonstrating this. Once we've dealt with any inaccuracies/false inferences, and have established what the sources actually say, I think we can then sort out how to improve the writing.Telanian7790 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Further, and for completeness, I am innocent of the charge of being uncivil. That matter has already been determined by the administrators. Specifically, 10mmsocket already made a complaint alleging that I had been uncivil. That complaint was dismissed, with the administrator saying that I had acted appropriately and that my post on 15 February 2022 accurately reflected how Wikipedia works. You are welcome to re-raise the same complaint again if you wish. Unless and until you do, I consider that matter at an end.Telanian7790 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Ok, thanks. // Hippo43 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Excellent, we've made progress. You cannot substantiate your claims that anything in the text is inaccurate or otherwise undue, so those grounds of complaint disappear (from you at least). Now, just because you cannot substantiate that claim does not mean that someone else can't (or that others will not have completely different objections). We've got plenty of time so it's probably sensible to pause at this moment and see if anyone else wishes to join the discussion.Telanian7790 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC) A pause will give you time to re-write the RFC to be about content. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I am not changing the RFC. This is my final word on the subject. Any further demands from you or anyone else that I change it - unless that person is an administrator pronouncing a judgment on the matter - will be ignored. You are welcome to use this pause to set out what, if anything, is my wrong with my proposed text. I note that this is now the tenth time I have made this invitation.Telanian7790 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) References

Telanian7790, "how" is not really an option. RfCs are meant to be straight forward. Stating what is to be included or excluded or otherwise adjusted. That's it. So I've added that to a new RfC and, hopefully, it'll be smooth sailing from this point going forward. Sorry, I haven't read your statement in full (it is very long), but feel free to refactor anything from the collapsed text, though I would advise you to be concise and succinct as much as possible. Thanks. P.S. Redrose64, help! El_C 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I think it worked! El_C 22:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the legal challenge regarding reporting non-crime hate incidents

Should the addition that expands on 'non-crime hate incidents' (diff) be included in the article? El_C 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Some of it but not all of it exactly. It would be important to mention most of the background: the 1999 Macpherson report, racism issues in the Metropolitan police, under reporting, even "to deal with hate incidents before they escalate into serious hate crimes" from BBC 2020 or "hateful gestures that were a prelude to awful crimes" from BBC 2021. But I don't see a connection in sources between irrationality of complaint and the 2019 unlawful practice of Humberside Police. A lot of the original research and rephrasing of expressions such as "irrespective of whether there", "had recommended that such non-crime incidents be recorded", "the lack of guidance about how to handle irrational complaints in the advice", "subsequently found the police had accepted without any critical scrutiny or assessment for accuracy" or "that the complainant had been operating 'on the outer margins of rationality'" can be left out. But we definitely should mention Harry Miller's case leading up to the ruling and something about "perception of hostility" versus "evidence of hostility" as in BBC 2021 as part of the rationale for ruling against the guidance. For balance it's probably a good idea to also mention the debate on freedom of speech, 'non-crime hate incidents', and hate crime, which you can find near the end of the 2 BBC articles in sections from columnists and also from the piece Guardian 2022Senorangel (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Why should it not be included? It appears to be relevant (without prejudice regarding copy editing). · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• (invited by the bot) With the caveat that I haven't taken the deep dive here to give a well-researched or thorough opinion.....looks to me like something that should be covered in that depth. A prominent topic (including n source) and also a substantive and informative one regarding what the College of Policing does. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments. Unless anyone says otherwise, I think the general view is that this information should be included, but subject to the pruning indicated by Senorangel. I'll duly have a think how to do that and propose a revised text. Thanks again.Telanian7790 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Telanian, you are (obviously) ignoring the objections already raised. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a very bizarre response. I acknowledged the objections made by Senorangel. I literally said "subject to the pruning indicated by Senorangel." No-one else had objected at all. I see, however, that you have subsequently offered substantive objections.Telanian7790 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed for readability purposes

As you obviously know, there were obviously objections raised in the earlier discussion, which you are obviously trying to ignore. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Another bizarre response. Yes, there were objections, but I don't see how you can expect them to be taken into account if you don't actually engage with, and take part in, the RFC. After all, if you just stay silent - as you were doing - that could mean that you had been persuaded by the points made Senorangel, Peter Southwood and North8000 and had nothing more to say. Anyway, you are now substantively responding. So can we now park this unhelpful and unconstructive attack on me and just focus on the actual issues? I will aim to respond to your substantive post below in due course.Telanian7790 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC) I think if these editors agreed with you, you would find a way to take their views into account. No one is attacking you, they are just criticising your dishonest behaviour. // Hippo43 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Um, right. That criticism doesn't appear to accord with objective reality. No-one above in this RFC is accusing me of dishonesty. Also I clearly am taking the above views into account, as demonstrated again by my comment, which I quote again: "subject to the pruning indicated by Senorangel." And as will be further demonstrated when I respond to your substantive view below, which I am going to do immediately after making this comment. I find it regrettable that you are wasting so much time making such unpleasant accusations that are so clearly and demonstrably not true.Telanian7790 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Still dishonest. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think the weight given in the article to this case is about right. The article is about the College of Policing, and should not be the place for a broader treatment of British hate crime law or the Harry Miller case. Either of those could perhaps have their own article.

If we are to mention the Mcpherson report, the causal connection needs to be better sourced, not just to an opinion piece in the Guardian. What happened in the 15 years between the report and the college's guidance, for example?

"Institutional racism" in the Met is not directly related to the NCHI guidance, and should not be included. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of surprising you, Hippo43, I actually understand and see merit in what you're saying. And I really wish you had not taken so long to share such substantive views. I agree with you that this article is about the College of Policing and I certainly do not think we need excessive content going into 'British hate crime law', etc. Rather, all I say this article should do is faithfully report a clearly notable case involving the College of Policing (and it plainly is notable for the College of Policing to have lost such a high profile case at Court of Appeal level). The content on this page should be the minimum necessary to coherently summarise and explain that case - and I entirely agree that further detail can probably be left for further separate pages.Telanian7790 (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am with Hippo43. I do not agree to the the addition. It gives undue weight to the case and adds little value to the article. If it is to be expanded on anywhere it should be in a separate article related to hate crime in the UK. This is an article about the college of policing. They issue guidance to police, and guidance is sometimes revised. A notable case - mentioned here - led to that happening and it is adequately explained in the original content. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think it has due weight; it's one piece of guidance amongst thousands that they publish. This would fit better in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_Kingdom JeffUK (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)