Britain Culture Education Justice Liberalism Media Politics Scotland Sex and sexuality

The ‘Hate’ Police are Now Here

Cycling home from St Peters I saw a poster that took my breath away.  Sometimes you see that something is going to happen and yet it still shocks you when it does.  These posters are currently being displayed in towns and cities all over Scotland.



There are others – but it was these that took my breath away –



You will note that these are posters from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Police.   At one level they seem fine.  Who is going to argue against the idea that we want rid of hatred?  That people should not call others names, or be violent, or mock and abuse?   But that is not what is happening here.  Note the following:

The posters themselves are somewhat ambiguous, unless you speak the code.  If you do speak the language of the Scottish Government and Police then what they are saying is that any kind of disagreement with homosexuality, the trans philosophy, or Islam  makes you guilty of hate and you have no place in ‘our’ community.

They are selective – Its only certain groups that are mentioned.  Look at what they leave out.   What about those of us who are Christians who are regularly mocked and abused in the media, in our schools and on the streets?  What about English people in Scotland?  What about the disabled?  Or many, many other groups?  Why do they only pick on these select groups?

They are intimidatory – It is not the job of the police to police our thoughts and hearts.  They can have no idea what we do or do not hate or love.  Their responsibility is to deal with crimes that are committed. They do not have the time, money or ability to deal with our thoughts. But it seems they are going to try.  The new State morality is going to be imposed through education and enforced by the State police – welcome to modern Scotland – the Saudi Arabia of Secularism.

They are self-contradictory – A poster which is designed to combat hate – spreads hate.  Imagine a poster which said – Dear bigots, you can’t spread your homosexual hatred here!” .  You would be arrested immediately for putting that up.  But now the police and the Scottish government are putting up a poster which incites hatred – by implying that it is religion that is to blame.  I get enough hatred in schools, Universities, the media and online, without the government and police encouraging it!

The posters say ‘love lives in this country, not hate’ – whilst encouraging people to hate anyone who dares to disagree with their new State morality.    They should say ‘insanity lives in this country’.  We are moving towards an Orwellian State where the in the name of love we are taught to hate all who do not agree with the State’s philosophy

If you doubt this is happening – take the case of the feminist activist Kelly-Jay Keen-Minshull who put up a poster with the following words“Woman, women, noun, adult human female.”  Dr Adrian Harrop, complained that it was transphobic and would make trans people feel ‘unsafe’.  So the company apologised, the poster was removed and the police are investigating.

Mr Harrop, 31, a GP registrar who lives with his husband in Sunderland, denied trying to silence anyone, saying he is not an activist. Asked why he found the meaning of the word “woman” so offensive, he said: “It really isn’t the dictionary definition itself, it’s the motivation behind it. That poster creates an environment of hostility for trans women and makes them frightened.”   He also said he was removing anyones free speech, whilst demanding that these posters be taken down!

C87C0EC4-A5F6-4BBC-8CDF-FC6AFBCBF7DBMrs Keen-Minshull, 44, said the poster’s removal was Orwellian. “I find it far more sinister and pernicious than the old-fashioned sexism where the guy at the garage is surprised I know anything about engines. I’d take that guy any day over the Twitter troll who thinks I don’t know what a woman is.

“If the word ‘woman’ can mean anything, then women lose their sex-based protections and nobody is protected. Women are getting really, really fed up. Every single organisation that capitulates, paves the way for the next one to do the same. This is what trans activists do. This is how they silence women. I hope this will help people wake up to what’s going on.”

As I walked past a couple of these posters today, I saw two policemen in front of me – I almost felt that I should be handing myself into them.  After all by their new standards I must be a criminal – I believe that its ok to call a woman a woman…and that a woman is an adult human female!  And my name appeared in the Daily Mail this week Daily Mail (Scotland) 28.09.18  in what could only be termed a ‘transphobic’ article….and I just recorded a programme with the BBC which will undoubtedly in future years, when the State trains its though police, be used as a classic example of transphobia.

This is where we are heading…


Wow! – The Prophesied Madness of State Sponsored Child Abuse has Arrived.

I have now reported the police and the Scottish government to themselves for this ‘hate incident’ – Police Scotland and the Scottish Government Reported for Hate Incident


  1. I’m staggered by this.

    I haven’t seen the posters in question but I initially assumed they must have been done by an attention-seeking atheist group. The fact they’ve been done by the Scottish Executive and the police is incredible. And paid for by us! I have come to despise both organisations and this only adds to it.

    How dare the paid employees of the State address the public like this? Who do they think they are?

    1. Hi. I don’t know what line of employment you are in but can I ask if it is the case that you have Never been required, as part of your employment, to carry out tasks or processes that you don’t agree with or indeed can see a better way of doing? Do you really think that the police officers that deal with the public on a day to day basis have come up with this idea?
      When the Scottish forces were amalgamated the police effectively became answerable to Scottish Government. Police do not make the laws. Their job is to enforce the laws that Governments legislate without fear, favour, malice or ill will, (whether they agree with them or not).
      You are asking (quite rightly) not to be pilloried for your beliefs and for your beliefs to be afforded the same respect as others are demanding. As a Christian can you also not hate/despise every police officer for decisions made by Govt. Many are themselves Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Seikh and do not agree with everyone’s personal lifestyles, however, as a police officer and as a person of faith, their job is to deal with the requirements of the job in the best way they can, regardless of their own beliefs. I agree that as in every walk of life some are better at it than others, and some days each individual doesn’t officer will fail to meet their own personal standards (part of being human). Can I ask, is that the kind of standard that you as an individual would be able to maintain on a daily basis Despite your own beliefs? I believe as a Christian the requirement is to hate the sin and Not the sinner and to let the love of Christ shine through ALL our actions.

      1. If you are going to make comments can I politely request that you take the time to read what is being said and think about it, before commenting. No one is saying that they hate/despise every police officer…no one is saying that we should. Indeed the very opposite. The criticism is of the police as an institution whose leadership have decided to promote these posters.

  2. As they screw down the bolts, tighter and tighter, on what people are ‘allowed’ to think and say, the pressure cooker of the natural knowledge of God’s truth (Romans 1) will strain to withhold the stress. And when the inevitable backlash comes it will sadly be explosive in nature. Even more sadly many Christians will unwittingly find themselves an active part of that explosion.

    Suppressing the god-given beliefs and thoughts of people will end badly.

    1. Mrs Keen-Minshull’s protest shows that femimism is eating itself. If sex is merely a social construct, it is ridiculous to have any consideration for women, so why care two hoots whether they are raped or not ? If women are not real entities, rather than social constructs, they cannot expect to have the vote. Feminism is an incoherent mess. How can men, who are really mere social constructs, be complained of as being guilty of “patriarchy” ?

      1. Please read the article again and read George Orwell’s “1984”. The central point is that any attempt by the police in Scotland to enforce “thought crime” is not just futile, it is the mark of tyrany.

      2. You are confusing sex with gender. Gender IS a social construct, sex is a
        biological fact.

      3. No – thats your ideology….there is no scientific basis for your statement. Gender is not a social construct – ‘expressions of gender’ can be but gender itself IS biologically connected. Sex and gender are connected.

      4. If gender is a social construct, not a biological fact like sex, then societies are at liberty to define (or to “construct” gender) as they wish. Certain people of influence in their own societies have already defined gender, not least the queen in her Gender Recognition Act. The queen defines gender differently from David and me, but differently from most people who believe the LGBT doctrines too. We don’t believe in trans adults as LGBT believers do. The queen does believe in trans adults, but not in trans children, as LGBT believers do.

        There was a struggle leading up to the queen’s abandonment of a former social construct of gender, in favour of a compromise social construct intermediate between that of most societies for the past six thousand years or so. That struggle continues. The queen is piggie-in-the-middle. Her Gender Recognition Act does not satisfy me. I lobby for its repeal. It does not satisfy the LGBT believers either, who do not think that its social reconstruction of gender goes far enough.

        What we must avoid is punishing people for their beliefs. We must not punish people who would like the queen to revert to an older social construct of gender, which punished offensive behaviours like pretending to be male when one was female and vice versa. Nor must we punish those who would like the queen to further reconstruct gender, adopting the concept of trans children.

        If we proscribe churches, faith communities, subcultures, political parties and individuals who construct gender socially differently from those who are most powerful, we will no longer be a liberal democracy.

  3. The poster regarding ‘religious hate’ is especially alarming – because the very language used is implying that people from a Christian background (use of ‘sermon’) are likely to be guilty of bigotry.

    And, as I think you have observed before, David, the messages in these posters is predicated upon a kind of ‘us and them’ worldview, where ‘Scotland’ is identified with the ‘us’, and anyone who fits their caricature of bigotry is ‘them’. There is no mercy implicit in these announcements for anyone who falls within the category of ‘them’, as decided by the star-chamber.

  4. Why are Theophobes so afraid of anyone who has faith? The use of words like ‘religion’ and ‘sermon’ on these posters gives the impression that it is people of faith who are causing the problem. My experience is that people of faith are the most tolerant of others’ views. Why should not agreeing with a person’s position on an issue, or their chosen lifestyle choice, mean that you are a bigot. Are those bigoted against God not guilty of bigotry?

  5. There is one about the disabled, btw. It says:
    Dear Disablists
    Did you hear the one about the girl with Downs Syndrome who was pushed to the ground? Or the man with a learning disability who was tormented so much he was driven to suicide? We did and it makes us sick.
    From now on, if we see or hear your hate, we’re reporting you.
    We’re a caring nation, not a hating one.
    And we’re going to take away your ability to hurt people.

    1. Do you think if I report NHS Scotland for killing unborn disabled babies every day Police Scotland will ‘take away their ability to hurt them’?

    2. Yes I was going to mention this in relation to the “what about the disabled?” point. They have one too.

  6. Stop twisting the truth folks, stop turning the narrative into one where Christians are the victims. Don’t make up your own sub text for these posters. Just stop preaching hate. If your God is a God of love, preach love. If he isn’t, don’t preach him.

    1. If you love babies does it not make sense to hate abortion ?
      If you love Jewish people would you hate the holocaust ?
      If you love Africans you should hate slavery.
      God is good and therefor hates evil.
      You can’t preach the love of God without preaching the Holiness of God, you’ll preach a truncated gospel.
      Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
      Psalms 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
      Psalms 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

    2. I think you’ll see it’s quite clear that Christians are the victims of these posters because they are clearly aimed at the entire group. Therefore those posters do indeed constitute a hate crime.

    3. God cannot be love without wrath. We preach what His Word says, not what a perverse world wants to hear. We do any of us think we are. God is love and He’s also a consuming fire to those who are perishing.

  7. I no longer know what ‘hate’ is, beyond something I’m often accused of for disagreeing with someone and their particular ‘liberal’ agenda. And I’m way more liberal than David is 😂

  8. Please could someone explain to these ignoramuses that a “phobia” is a medical condition, a morbid or unreasonable fear of something (eg “arachnophobia”), from the Greek “phobos”, fear. It does NOT mean “hate”, for which the Greek word is “misos”, as in “misogyny”, hate of women (gyne).
    Sowhat these posters are saying is that if you happentosuffer from a mental illness,you are a criminal!

    1. Among the Left there is a longstanding use of psychological diagnosis to silence their opponents. This was standard among the Marxists. If Comrade X was critical against the Party/Government, then something was wrong with him. He was in need of psychological help, and thus he would “disappear”. The Left’s adoption of psychological language is a way of completely dismissing their critics without having to take them seriously at all.

      As we live into an increasingly “soft totalitarianism” in the West, we will see, I fear, this sort of thing being used to deny people their livelihood, professions, or careers. It has begun already. Tag them “sick” and send them packing if they do not embrace the ideology.

  9. Appalled at this sinister development, David. Thank you for foregrounding it and mounting such a powerful, logical critique.

  10. Thank you David for drawing our attention to this. This is deeply alarming and I would urge every Christian to write to the First Minister and object at our money being used for this venture. Once again, the SNP government wrongly claims to speak for Scotland. I took Kevin Allard’s advice and also reported the Police Force to their own anti-hate crime unit and would encourage others to do the same. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. We should not be the silent majority.

  11. “You will note that these are posters from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Police” This , I find almost unbelievable did I not trust this source .

  12. I’ve reported the posters as a hate crime. I trust that thousand of others will do the same.

      1. As an Englishman in England I would be interested in hearing an answer to that. Given it is still within the UK surely I can have something to say?

  13. Greetings from the Great Southern Land (Australia, for those who may be wondering) …. This is unbelievable! The fact that this is the Police and the Government also makes it potentially dangerous. I wonder what historians will think of all this madness when they look back at these times from a couple of hundred years hence? Of course they won’t be western historians because the west will have suicided long before. A nation making war on itself – what a sad spectacle!

  14. I think you are not being clear on something though. These are not thought crimes where your beliefs, even saying them out loud, will get you in trouble.

    This is about crimes that include elements of attack specifically against these groups. Police Scotland: Definition of a hate crime – a crime motivated by malice or ill will towards a social group by:

    Sexual orientation.
    Transgender/gender identity (Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Act 2010).

    You can still preach your beliefs (notwithstanding your misunderstanding of the definition of persecution leading you to believe you will be jailed for your beliefs) and articulate them in the context of your faith and how you think society would be a better place if it adhered more to your faith. You are still free to give us Gods definitions of what is right and proper and no-one can call it a crime. Because it is not.

    A hate crime has to be a crime first. The content of preaching isnt a crime (certain public order offences may get in the way of certain styles of street preaching or fraud laws getting in the way of online “preaching”).

    What you do is not a crime. What you say is not a crime. How you act is not a crime. So why you think this is 1984 is a little odd to be honest. I mean, if people really wanted to have a go at you for your beliefs do you think that your exclusion of women from the same role you have would still be allowed if people were going to use sex discrimination as a way to attack your beliefs. The police would have been called in to escort women church leaders into all Free Church Churches by now surely?

    1. You will forgive me for saying – but that is somewhat naive. The definition of what constitutes a crime is continually expanding. THe problem with the posters is that they are not only selective but that they do not define what they mean. So for example there are people who would say that saying a woman does not have a penis is transphobic. It is therefore hatred. It is therefore illegal. By definition all crimes are illegal. The difference here is that opinions are being treated as crimes. In todays Orwellian Scotland – what you say is a crime. Where have you been the past couple of years?!

      1. “So for example there are people who would say that saying a woman does not have a penis is transphobic. It is therefore hatred. It is therefore illegal.”

        Wrong. There has to be more involved. Otherwise why is the BNP (or even UKIP) a legitimate political party? What people spout about people of colour (or aboriginals seeking their own space – “separate cultural development – i.e. apartheid!”) or immigrants (400m ready to flood into the UK) could easily be seen and read as hatred. But no-one has said its illegal.

        You are injecting steps and concepts into legal processes that arent there. I appreciate that the decline of Christian influence can be somewhat unsettling but you are just as far from jail as I am (as a humanist I have a few of all religions that would not be that different in tone of language that you would use re homosexuality).

        We agree on the penis/woman thing and its the move to promote acceptance of trans people (legitimate aim) to the equating of trans people with people of their actual sex is getting very messy.

      2. I’m afraid its not wrong. I have been told that if I continue to say that a man who says he is a woman is not really a woman I am guilty of hate speech and subject to prosecution.

      3. Who has said that though? The police? Independent legal advice?

        There is still a vast gap between what you say and think and what you do. Saying that women of child bearing age are more problematic to recruit for a job is different from discriminatory recruitment practices.

      4. David, you wrote, ” I have been told that if I continue to say that a man who says he is a woman is not really a woman I am guilty of hate speech and subject to prosecution.”

        Would you be willing to share information with us as to who said this, in what context? Would you be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, I wonder?

        Would you also mind please linking to my blog post, “Police Scotland’s own hate crime”?
        The post has the narrow focus of how to report that poster as a hate crime. My post isn’t as learned as yours, but it is shorter. It might give some of your readers who want to DO something after reading your post, practical ideas as to how to report this hate crime themselves, by adapting my model complaint set out in the post. They can then register that they have done this. And they can sign the petition, “Police Scotland, Stop spewing your hate speech against religious people” on CitizenGO.

        We need intellectuals, and we also need people to say and to think “tut tut”, but we need those who will turn concern into pray, and into action. But you have a golden opportunity to convert readers into doers, and I’m trying to help you to do that. Think of my contribution as closing a sale, to a customer attracted by your marketing of the product

        Pretty please?

      5. John I’m assuming the link is in here. But my second post also provides the link on how to report this – and many have done so.

        Feel free to post the link here if you wish…

      6. We stand at a “purim” moment in history. Grumbling isn’t going to be enough. I (and several others) have followed David’s example, by reporting a hate crime online. I make the following ten important points. I provide a link to my own blog post, which David has invited me to publish here. There you can see some of the ten points expanded and explained.

        1. The “Dear Bigots” poster that says “you can’t spread your religious hate here”, is not merely a hate incident, it is actually a hate crime. It incites hatred based upon religion.

        2, The poster that is a hate crime, says nothing at all about LGBT. It must therefore be considered in isolation, not in any so-called “context”. That is appropriate because the poster is being displayed out-of-context.

        3. You are a witness of this hate crime, even if you don’t live in Scotland.

        4. If you are “religious”, you are also a victim of the hate crime yourself, even if you don’t live in Scotland.

        5. You ought to report this hate crime, as a witness of it, even if you are not religious, and therefore not a victim yourself. (Think: Niemoller, “First they came for the socialists”.)

        6. Religious people ought to report this hate crime a second time, as a victim of the hate crime.

        7. My blog post contains the wording of my two reports of the hate crime, as witness and as victim. It is suitable for copying an adaptation in a way that David’s complaint isn’t. (David’s complaint is published in an earlier blog post of his than this.) My complaint is more generic than David’s in its wording. It does not mention LGBT. (It doesn’t need to.)
        You can copy and paste my report as a starting point if you need inspiration as to how to express your own hate crime reports.

        8. I am inviting others who complain to publish the text of their own hate crime reports, as comments on my blog post. Later visitors to my blog post may therefore be able to take inspiration from how other people have worded their own hate crime reports, perhaps including yours if you participate.

        9. You will need to save a copy of your hate crime report, and keep a note of the reference number. (Read my blog post to understand why.)

        10. VERY IMPORTANT: I have started an online petition for you to sign, and then to publicise. (My blog post links to it.)

        I am not saying that my blog post is better than David’s, except in the sense that it covers the above ten points, which David’s blog posts didn’t set out to cover. David’s post is the better read. Mine is probably more practical for converting readers into doers.

        Please go here :-

        Police Scotland’s own hate crime

        Thank you, David, for your hospitality.

    2. ExiledHumanist (@EHumanist)
      Excellent points you have raised here on the SG ‘s excellent initiative.

      For all of you of a particular religous persuasion on this site: ” Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. “

      1. I judge by God’s Word, for that is what I will be judged by. And I will not ‘apologise’ for what God says.

  15. Among the list of hate crimes involving Christians this one deserves to be included:
    “Canon Tom White, parish priest St Alphonsus’ and St Mary’s in the Calton, said he was twice spat on and attacked by a man carrying a pole as parishioners left Mass at the same time as a passing Orange march on July 7.
    He added that he was subjected to sickening verbal abuse and called a ‘Fenian’ and a ‘paedophile.’”

    The initial response of the police was to call this a ‘minor incident’. Any chance of that happening if you just happen to say something about homosexuals which they do not approve of?

    1. Like what kinds of things would you like to say about ‘homosexuals’? Maybe let’s hear them – or don’t you have the courage of your convictions? Believe you me most ‘homosexuals’ have heard every form of abuse and hate speech you can imagine so it won’t be anything new. But, seriously, what is the big issue, exactly?

      1. I don’t think I would like to say anything about ‘homosexuals’. I treat all human beings as the same…and as individuals. I don’t think it is helpful or wise to group people in a category based upon perceived sexual identity. I am quite clear about my convictions….

      2. Do you think that anything I say that disagrees with your beliefs and behaviour is “hatred” and should be reported?

      3. My point is that someone called a Catholic priest a ‘fenian’ and a ‘paedophile’. Now I would hope that you would concur that that’s pretty offensive language to use towards a Catholic priest. But the police, initially, said that this was just a ‘minor incident’. However, if someone used language towards a homosexual which he regarded as offensive and reported it to the police I somehow doubt that they would regard it as a ‘minor incident’. I would not want to use such language myself. My point was that the two situations are similar but that I doubted that the police would treat them in a similar way.

      4. A perfectly rational response. The process of commencing a communication with the line “Dear Bigot” presupposes that nothing that follows is going to follow the path of rationality, and instead will degenerate into verbal abuse and power-play.

        This tells us more about the mindset of the secular left, and how they regard anyone who has a differing opinion, than anything else.

      5. I would like to add the following to my response to Michael’s comment.
        If Michael has been subject to any offensive comments on the basis of his sexual orientation then that is deplorable. Nobody should be subject to offensive comments. That, of course, includes Christians. Furthermore, if he has been the subject of offensive comments then he will have a much greater knowledge of those terms than I have. My point was not to suggest that I want to make offensive comments. Any such suggestion totally misunderstands my comment. The purpose of my comment was to highlight the ambiguity of the police: that they would treat offensive comments as a ‘minor incident’ with regard to one group of people but not with regard to another group of people.
        In regard to this ambiguity of public institutions I would go further and include the BBC. If a BBC employee were to state, in a programme, that the terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘terrorist’ were almost synonymous the employee would, no doubt be subject to instant dismissal. If a BBC employee were to state, in a programme, that the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘paedophile’ were almost synonymous the employee would, no doubt be subject to instant dismissal. But when John Humphrys, on the Today programme, said that the words ‘priest’ and ‘paedophile’ are almost synonymous the BBC told me that that was quite acceptable.
        So my point is that public institutions do not treat ‘hate’ incidents on an equal basis.

      6. If I say, as the Bible says, that homosexuality is a sin against God which divides him from Christ, Michael will be offended. We sinners are always offended when our sin is called out. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call out sin, because it is against God.

    2. A nice elderly gentleman that I know was set upon verbally, and physically, because he dared to hold a poster remembering Harry Hammond.

      Interestingly, a large, shaven headed, fit young man very close by holding a poster with Bible quotation on about homosexuality and its sinfulness wasn’t even approached.

      1. The nice elderly gentleman was an easy target, bullies attack easy targets. They wouldn’t dare attack the large fit young man.

  16. Police Scotland are acting more like a gang here and if you are not in their gang you are in trouble. The police do not issue this kind of warning against every conceivable category of crime which might be committed. Why not? Because that is not their job. They are there to police and protect with impartiality and with the consensus of the community. These posters clearly divide the community into “good” guys and “bad” guys in a way they would not do with other potential crimes or criminals.
    There are still Christians who cannot see what is happening in and to this country. It is time for church leaders to speak out and warn where this political correctness will inevitably end. And it won’t be in a happier, freer, more tolerant country!

  17. If this is genuine (and that beggars belief!), the “Dear Bigots” version is blatant intimidation, aggression and is clearly a hate crime!

    Scotland, you need to report this quickly or it will set a very dark new standard for how the state can oppress minorities that think differently to the totalitarian secularist group-think.

    Report, report, report!!!

  18. I did find the posters rather appalling, but one need not look to fiction (1984) for examples of punishing thought crime when one has the example of centuries of church history in Scotland and their punishment of dissenters, atheists and those who generally thought differently.

  19. To the writer of “Dear BIGOTS”,
    I’m not sure if you realise how palpable your intolerance and hatred is – it screams out from your words like … Bigotry. You say you have “faith in respect and love”, but your words communicate something different…
    However if we see or hear your hate, we’re going to just carry on loving you and accepting you. You’ll be welcome in our churches whether you’re trying to shut them down, or limit our free speech. You are always welcome: black, white or rainbow. I’m afraid we’re unlikely to change our values through state-sponsored intimidation, but perhaps the world still needs an organisation that doesn’t cave under pressure? We’re sad that things have got this messed-up… let’s talk?

  20. Having a son who is a serving police officer I am very much concerned at the buckling of the police leadership If this is truly genuine.

    I called in at the local station and asked for a copy of recent police flyers and they certainly had none on display or for uplift. The desk clerk was very helpful and did not know what I was referring to . I shall however be calling on the Chief Inspector to mention my concerns should materials of such appear in our home town.

    1. Your local station has a public counter?!?

      I was wondering what kind of posters the rank and file would come up with. “Dear elderly couple who have just had their house broken into, we’ll be round to see you in five days. Maybe. Because we are running about stupid trying to cover more ground than we have boots to deal with. And our top brass is more interested in pushing this right-on piffle that you can read on the poster opposite. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and cosy? No, us neither.” I dare say there are many variations possible.

  21. The use of the word “sermon” infers that the Bigots are Christians. It is a clear statement of discrimination against a group of people without any basis. Where is the evidence that Christians are all bigots? It’s like saying all Jews love money – which is a hate crime.

    The use of the word “sermon” applies negative connotations to Christians as a group and only serves to rally public opinion against Christians. When put like this, it must be considered a hate crime. This is grossly irresponsible by the people who created the notice. It is even more shameful if it has come from Police Scotland.

  22. Pingback:
  23. HATE IT, HATE IT, HATE IT, I just hate it: LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT, I just love it, These are just two sides of the same common ideological coin, that has currency within it’s own system.
    Imagine a Scot with LOVE tattooed across their left knuckles and HATE across their right, a walking paradox. Would lopping off the criminal right hand make them whole and loving? Would it renew their hearts and minds? Would it bring remorse rather than repentance, Would it at the same time vindicate one and victimise the other?
    And how about this (just to show that David’s blog and responsive comments, are not from bigoted Christians with a persecution complex) from thinking, reasoned humanist/atheists on freedom of thought and expression:

    from which the following is taken (but see the link for the whole declaration):

    “The right to freedom of thought and belief is one and the same right for all. The human right articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated elsewhere is and should be a single right, indivisible, protecting the dignity and freedom of all people by protecting their right to their personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs, religious or non-religious. As Article 7 of the Declaration says, ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.’

    No one anywhere should ever be forced into or out of a belief. Freedom of thought implies the right to develop, hold, examine and manifest our beliefs without coercion, and to express opinions and a worldview whether religious or non-religious, without fear of coercion. It includes the right to change our views or to reject beliefs previously held, or previously ascribed. Pressure to conform to ideologies of the state or to doctrines of religion is a tyranny. Laws that prescribe or criminalise beliefs contravene human dignity and must be abolished. Every citizen of every state has the right to demand the repeal of such laws, and all states should support those, wherever they are, who demand that their social freedoms and personal liberty be upheld.

    The right to freedom of expression is global in its scope. The human right articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to ‘seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’. No parochial nationalism or state insecurity should prevent the global human community from fulfilling the promise of our new technologies, our mass media, our social media, and our personal access to transnational networks. States should invest adequate resources to allow their citizens’ participation in this global conversation.

    There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be in accordance of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it.Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished…..”

    The obvious caveat is : it is an “Oxford Declaration” not Scottish

  24. It is truly myopic – amazing!

    Either hate of *anyone* is wrong – regardless of their characteristics – or the law is discriminating – allowing hate of people that it doesn’t protect.

    This is of course the weakness of current Liberal equality thinking : it doesn’t treat Everyone Equally!!!

  25. I can see your overall point – it’s certainly possible to go to far policing people’s beliefs and even thoughts. But the posters seem fairly specific in their message – “do you think it’s right to harass people”, “Right to humiliate”, “torment people”, “use violence”, “make people’s lives a misery”. These are specific areas that hopefully we should agree that the police should have involvement. Would you not agree that hate crime exists and it should be reported to the police?

    The posters don’t seem that ambiguous – perhaps the shorter version of the “Dear Bigots” poster doesn’t give much detail, but someone that torments, shout derogatory words and uses violence towards gay people is a homophobe. Would you not agree?

    I’m not sure on your point about being selective – you can’t mention everyone. Defending homosexuals and transgender people seems a great place to start. Perhaps if these posters are successful they can create others. Regarding being self-contradictory – the posters don’t say we should hate these people – they are saying we won’t stand for the hatred and will stand against it.

    There ARE homophobes, transphobes and bigots in our society and we should stand against them. That’s all the posters seem to be saying to me. Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes these hate crimes, but the posters seem fairly specific.

    I couldn’t look at your further example of the activist as the link seemed dead.

    To agree with you though – we do need to watch the balance between free speech and someone’s ability to use hate speech and violence. I just don’t think those posters are good examples of curtailing free speech.

    1. Dan – thanks. This is not about ‘hate crime’ (is there any other kind)….its about privileging certain groups and attacking others. The trouble is that they do not define what a homophobe is and imply if not explictly state that religious people are the homophobes or transphobes. It makes no distinction between the person who disagrees with SSM and the person who beats up homosexuals. The posters are not ‘just’ saying that it is wrong to beat up homosexuals – they are virtue signalling, privileging one group and pointing the finger at others.

      The job of the police is to prevent crime – not police thought.

  26. These posters use threatening and weaponised language. Their intention is to intimidate stigmatise and silence opinions that are not in agreement with those of their creators. I would suggest a process of grasping them along their top edge, and pulling forcefully downwards.

  27. David, David, David. I get the impression that you don’t love Big Brother. Shocking.

    And what you write could be seen as encouraging other people not to love Big Brother. Even to hate Big Brother.

    And that is about the most serious ‘hate crime’ that there is.

    Yes, we live in interesting times . . .

  28. You might like to know that the link behind ‘Kelly-Jay Keen-Minshull’ is to a page (in The Times) that has been removed because of a complaint! The mutaween are everywhere.

    There’s evidently a ‘not’ missing in ‘He also said he was removing anyones free speech’ and a ‘t’ missing from ‘though police’.

    Regarding the comment that the job of the police ‘is to enforce the laws that Governments legislate without fear, favour, malice or ill will’: The campaign highlighted is an example of zealotry beyond what the law requires, proactively asking the public to be informers and thereby increase police workloads. “In the last year there were over 5,300 charges of hate crime reported to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland. However, there are many more incidents that go unreported.”

    Victims of more conventional crimes, such as shoplifting, burglary, theft, internet fraud, are not being favoured with similar campaigns. They are increasingly told ‘We haven’t got the resources to pursue the incident’ – i.e. we are too busy dealing with hate crime. Because there are so many types of offence today, and more committed than can be prosecuted, poIicing inevitably involves picking and choosing. In many ways ‘hate crime’ is an easier thing to bring to court, for as a matter of law all you need is a ‘perception’ of hostility or prejudice.

    I have added this most disturbing development to my own compilation documenting State indoctrination and suppression of free speech at I also appreciated Walter Taylor’s observation that among the Left there is a longstanding use of psychological diagnosis to silence opponents.

  29. I have an update on my report of a hate crime or incident, in the form of the poster that David also reported. The following additional correspondence has been received.

    Today, from the police to me:


    Good afternoon,

    I write with reference to your initial correspondence dated 4th October 2018 and subsequent email dated 7th October 2018, regarding the current Scottish Government hate crime awareness campaign.

    I thank you for your comments on this subject and re-iterate that the aim of the campaign material was, and continues to be, to raise awareness of hate crime and encourage reporting.

    The creative concept documents a series of letters addressed to perpetrators of hate crime and describes the experience of victims, stating that ‘your hate has no home here’. The letters are signed ‘Yours, Scotland’, to encourage those who read it to report hate crime if they witness it, thereby helping to create better community cohesion.

    The creative concept and stakeholder engagement in respect of it was delivered and conducted by Scottish Government. We consider it relevant therefore to inform them of any feedback or concerns we receive, in order to contribute to both the overall evaluation and the planning of any future campaigns. The Scottish Government email address has been provided, to encourage any views to be raised directly with them.

    As you may be aware, the following definitions are used by Police Scotland in relation to hate crimes and incidents.

    * A hate crime is any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group.

    * A hate incident is any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group but which does not constitute a criminal offence (non-crime incident).

    Police Scotland has assessed the circumstances you raise. The motivation of the Scottish Government campaign is not based on malice or ill will towards any social group, therefore the circumstances will not be recorded as hate related. Details of your correspondence however have been recorded and the content passed to Scottish Government, Connected Communities Unit.

    No further action will be taken in respect of this matter.

    John McKenzie
    Chief Superintendent
    Safer Communities

    My reply to the police:

    Dear Chief Superintendent McKenzie

    You have told me that a hate crime and a hate incident alike are defined in part by the presence of the fact that the crime or incident is “perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group”.

    I have already made it clear that I perceive the poster about which I complained as being motivated at least in part by malice and ill-will towards a social group to which I belong, namely people who are religious. The incident or crime consisting of the display of the hateful poster therefore meets the said criterion. I have told you that I believe it to be hate crime, rather than a mere hate incident, because it incites hatred of religious people as well as being perceived by religious people to be motivated by malice and ill-will towards us as a social group.

    You have claimed that the motivation of the Scottish Government campaign is not based on malice or ill-will. I am glad to hear that. However, that is not the correct test, in order to inform your decisions. The correct test is, as you have told me, motivation as perceived by the victim or any other person, not as claimed by the offender.

    You have communicated to me a decision that, “the circumstances will not be recorded as hate-related” and that “No further action will be taken” in response to my reports of the hate crime or (at least) hate incident. (The “NFA decision”.)

    I am offering you the opportunity to give me a better-advised response, before I escalate this matter to the stage of doing one or more of the following, or otherwise, after taking legal advice:

    1) making a complaint to the police about the display of the poster, and another about the handling of my report of this poster’s display as a hate crime

    2) sending you a formal Letter Before Action pursuant to the Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review (judicial review of your NFA decision, that is)

    3) absent an assurance that the offending poster will no longer be displayed, seeking an injunction under the Protection From Harassment Act, compelling the police to stop displaying the poster, and possible seeking damages.

    Please take this correspondence seriously. It would be wrong of you to incur the cost to the public of litigation if the dispute between us can be settled amicably by negotiation. I am not attacking you. The police attacked us, who are people of religion. I am merely defending myself, and the social group to which I belong.

    Yours sincerely,

    John Allman

    If this correspondence ends up with nowhere to go but into court, then I may be disadvantaged if the others who have complained don’t enable me to obtain copies of their reports of a hate crime. I would just be grateful if anybody who is in the fight with me. comes forward.

  30. Dear John,

    The answer to you is an abrogation of the truth. Keep on keeping on!

    God’s blessings

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: