Dundee Equality Justice Liberalism Politics Scotland Sex and sexuality

Police Scotland and the Scottish Government Reported for Hate Incident

I have just fulfilled my civic duty and reported both Police Scotland and the Scottish Government for a ‘Hate Incident’  following this incident described yesterday. The ‘Hate’ Police are Now Here

To Police Scotland and the Scottish Government

I would like to report a Hate Crime. As the Scottish government and Police Scotland encourage us to do so- One Scotland 

IMG_4012Going home the other day I noticed a poster that said: Dear Bigots, you can’t spread your religious hate here. End of sermon. Yours, Scotland. “ This is part of a series which is also addressed to transphobes, homophobes, racists etc.   The only problem is that this is produced by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland.

You state that “A hate incident is any incident that is not a criminal offence, but something which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hate or prejudice.”   By your own criteria your posters, especially the one on religion is a hate incident. I perceive it as being motivated by hate and prejudice.

Why? In my day-to-day life I experience a great deal of anti-Christian prejudice, fuelled by ignorance and prejudice. Your poster will just add to that. You imply that it is religious people who are responsible for what you call homophobia and transphobia (although you don’t define what you mean by these terms – is being opposed to SSM ‘homophobia’?   Is believing that a woman is a ‘female adult human’ transphobia?  By not defining your terms you have of course left room for people to claim your support for anything that they determine is ‘phobic’).

Examples of the hate mail I regularly receive (most of this was online and public).

“I hate organised religion, but boy I sure hate you more”

Never mind the theory, just LOOK at the fella. Wouldn’t want him anywhere near my kids! 

“Personally, as a secularist, I hate religion and feel I have every right to, despite attempts by the Scottish government to sneak a blasphemy law round the back door by making it an offence this year to hate religion. “

Religion as a dangerous substance is clearly demonstrated by DAR as addict. He pedals the stuff, overdoses on his own stash, misuses and abuses. Lock your doors.

Don’t come back to this country…you are not welcome

I can give you numerous examples of people being bullied at school because they are termed ‘bible bashers’, sometimes even by teachers.   Workers who are scared to tell their colleagues that they go to church; a student whose lecturer openly and publicly mocked her faith as ‘stupid and dangerous’ in front of her whole class – to say nothing of the general attitude in culture and much of the media.  We have a situation where some people are scared (rightly or wrongly) to be seen going to church in case they are discriminated against in their employment.  Your poster only legitimises these attitudes and that hatred.   It is based on ignorance and prejudice.

The language of the poster is that of hatred, anger, prejudice, exclusion and intimidation.   There is within it the implicit threat, if not of violence, at least of criminal prosecution. The poster is designed quite deliberately to mock and to stir up prejudice against religious people but especially Christians. Even small things like the use of the font (old tyme) – one that is often used in old religious style publications. `The use of religious language to mock religion is an old trick – but not one I would expect the police or the government to use.

The exclusive nature of the post is also disturbing – you sign it ‘yours Scotland’. You call your website OneScotland which distinctly implies that those of us who don’t agree with the political/ social ideology you are seeking to impose on us all, don’t really belong to Scotland.   But this is our country as well as yours. You don’t have the right to call yourselves ‘Scotland’ – as though the rest of us don’t really belong here. Since when do you have the right to speak for the whole of Scotland? You put up this hateful, mocking, threatening poster in our name.

I am not the only person by any means who has these concerns. Numerous people have contacted me to express their disgust at your poster. For example I received this message today. “As a person of faith I find this deeply offensive and bigoted”.  I have spoken to several people who feel threatened and intimidated by your hateful poster.  Many people thought it was so bad that it as a spoof, a joke or just ‘fake news’.  It really is that ‘unbelievable’.

I realise that the idea behind the posters is good. You want to prevent hatred…so do I. You want to stop bullying. So do I. You want to promote love. So do I. (although I would love to know what you mean by love? – and please try to be be a little more coherent than ‘love is love’!). The trouble is that your poster will only encourage hatred and bullying. Do you really think that any homophobic person is going to look at any of your posters and think, “oh, I’d better stop that”?  They are more likely to look at it – be annoyed and if anything intensify their behaviour. At best what you are doing is virtue signalling – at worst it encourages hateful behaviour.  You don’t encourage love by promoting hatred of religion.

The list of ‘phobias’ is somewhat selective.  I don’t think it is right to use abusive language or actions against any LGBT person. But then I don’t think it is right to use abusive language or actions against any person. Will Police Scotland and the Scottish Government be producing posters for those who are targeted for abuse because they are fat, or short, or elderly, or ginger, or from Dundee?   I note with interest that the list of ‘stories’ on your website is 50% LGBT – for only 1-2% of the population.  What you are doing is in fact discriminating.   You are creating and using politicised hate crime legislation that elevates the rights of some groups over others.     The job of the police, or the government is not to do that. You should apply the law equally to all.  You should not be telling us how to speak or what to think.

I hope you will take my complaint seriously. By your own criteria (‘“A hate incident is any incident that is not a criminal offence, but something which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hate or prejudice.”) you have committed a hate offence, one that in my view is likely to lead to actual crime (e.g. vandalism against churches). You say that to report it is to stop it. I hope that you will remove the posters, apologise for the crass insensitivity shown and please get back to the job of policing crime;  not opinions, ideas or thoughts.

I look forward to hearing from you,

David A Robertson

St Peters Free Church


“The further society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it” George Orwell.

If anyone else wishes to report this ‘hate incident’ you can do so here – you can cite it as online abuse –





  1. Quite right. You’ll get waffly drivel back. The Police are doing as they are told by the Scottish Government (unopposed by the other Holyrood parties). At least we live in a democracy – if we don’t want this, we can vote for parties that would stop it.

    1. If only that were true as I don’t believe any current political party would stop it they are all equally awful.

      1. UKIP would stop it. UKIP will legalise free speech and end the concept of group rights and hate crime. Under UKIP everyone will be treated as an individual with equal rights but not the right not to be offended.

  2. Dear David

    Thank you for reporting on the wording of the poster. When 1984 actually arrived it did not seem as bad as Orwells 1984. It is looking as if Orwell was only out by a few decades and was indeed “prophetic


    David King

  3. Absolutely correct David thank you for standing up and speaking out.
    I feel threatened by these posters and also by similar radio adverts on the radio that are in my opinion (am I still allowed to have an opinion?) is propaganda.

  4. I still can’t believe that such wording on a flyer in Scotland was compiled and passed . I have recorded my objections !

  5. David,

    The whole West is one big herd of lemmings heading off a cliff. I don’t know what it will take for us to wake up. I watched Tommy Robinson get hauled off for a death by starvation in solitary confinement and am praying you will not get the same treatment. In the US, 30% of those polled believe we are headed for civil war and there is now talk of it in the liberal press. On Twitter, leftist guerrillas plot violence and discuss assassination of political leaders. We all should’ve drawn a line in the sand about 1000 miles back.

    Without a Reformation, we are headed off the cliff. Please keep us in your prayers and I will do likewise.

    1. Walt,
      when you say

      I watched Tommy Robinson get hauled off for a death by starvation in solitary confinement

      What are you talking about?

  6. I intend to report the hate crime.
    First though; can anyone explain what on earth “One Scotland” is? Surely it is against the law for the police to be political?

      1. Making things look like law, which are not law is surely coercion.
        Perhaps better to take them to court than report them to themselves.

      2. Exactly David, they are totally political. Thanks for post. Brilliantly written. 👏👏

  7. What’s happening in Scotland is is true in England, Germany – much of Europe, the US. Canada, all the West, and spreading world wide. Doesn’t sound like coincidence, it looks more that what is coming is bigger than coming for only you and me or those and them…and I don’t think we can stop it. I feel very small as this coming tide overwhelms and suffocates. But God!

  8. I would imagine the reason there are no posters for Ginger Dundonians is because those aren’t actually protected characteristics.

    I would imagine the use of the word Bigot means it is aimed at those who use their religion or particular denomination to cause division rather than a Christian or religious person.

    A lazy vague marketing concept maybe, but hardly a hate crime.

    1. But who determines what a protected characteristic is? On what basis? And why is it ok to hate some people but not others? Most things are not hate crimes. But this is, by the polices own definition a ‘hate incident’ and they will have to log it as such. Not just me but the many others who have written.

      1. The Equality Act? Government – Scottish /UK and European laws (over 100 of them) or do you disregard law and order?

        No one said it was ok to hate some but not others. Having been born and raised in NI, I’m familiar with hatred and bigotry and my faith isn’t intimidated by a poster.

      2. Not quite sure what you are trying to say? That its ok to hate and discriminate against religious people especially Christians, but not against others?

      3. And how does “protected status”, even in the US, reconcile itself with “equal justice under the law”? Perhaps “Justice” and “Law” truly have become estranged from each other?

  9. On seeing these posters I checked the calendar to see if was April1st!! A democracy should be alarmed about this conduct by those in authority who purport to act with tolerance, fairness and equality. Sadly, and concerning, there is religious illiteracy within Government, Police and related organisations, and there in no one in command who is able discern what religion really is. They certainly have no grasp of Christianity.
    Thank you David for reporting.

  10. In the mid 1990’s there was an expression doing the rounds: if Christianity were a crime, would you be convicted? It sounds a bit hollow now.

    A thought back to John Bunyan’s life may put things in perspective, a little. Stones were thrown at Methodists as the gospel was proclaimed. There are are many more examples. Bonhoeffer:
    “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
    Not to speak is to speak.
    Not to act is to act.”

    ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    And from Billy Graham:
    “When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.”

    ― Billy Graham

    St Peter -not the Church- who did not speak out, had his life transformed, strengthened, emboldened through the resurrected life of Jesus working in and out of him. Then he spoke out, without fear of favour. He had nothing to lose, everything to gain.
    As Jim Elliot said,
    “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.”
    ― Jim Elliot

  11. Bravo. What you have done is excellent. Well done.

    I believe you will be encouraged if you watch (or just listen to) this radio interview of a certain police and crime commissioner.

    Would you call the police ‘hurty-feelings helpline’? | Julia Hartley-Brewer

  12. I think you have misunderstood the poster (easy since it’s clumsily worded). The words “your religious hate” are referring to hateful behaviour towards religious people (e.g a Protestant showing hatred towards a Catholic or someone shouting abuse at a Muslim). They are not singling out Christians nor the followers of any religion as the people doing the hating. Looking at the website most of the posters are poor in the clarity of the messages they’re trying to convey. However, as this one in particular is so clearly open to misinterpretation they should take down this poster to avoid further harm.

    1. That is either very naive or gracious of you! This is not referring to hatred OF religious people – but hatred BY. The mocking style of the poster and the plain English of it makes that clear. I realise that it can be spun that way but nobody with any intelligence looking at that poster would think otherwise. Doubtless the people who drew it up thought that they were being clever in their virtue signalling….and that no one would bother – they got it wrong.

      1. Actually, if you look more closely at the One Scotland site you will see that you are wrong.

        On this page they outline the different types of discrimination that they are addressing in the campaign. The 2nd one they list is “Religion (e.g. have abuse shouted at them because of their beliefs or religious dress)”. This is what the poster relates to. If you look at the full version of the poster (the one you posted is the condensed version) you will see that those who attack the religion of others is their target since they continue this example of attacking religious dress:

        Also, historically in the Scottish context bigotry often refers to those who hate others for reasons of the victim’s religion (sectarianism) so when they say ‘bigot’ they probably mean those who display hatred towards someone of a different religion (including secularists towards Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc).

        So, regardless of one’s views on hate crimes, the Scottish Government or any other issue raised here, this is not an example of anti Christian ideology, although the clumsy execution has clearly led many of you to believe otherwise.

      2. No – I did look closely at it….and the poster does not refer to that. Of course they will spin it like that now….but they used the word sermon in a sarcastic manner – addressing those who preach sermons not preaching to those who would yell abuse at religious people (in this context of course they are primarily referring to Islamaphobia). The juxtaposition of a poster which basically says ‘get out homophobes’ beside a ‘get out religious bigots’.. – with the idea that religion is the cause of homophobia being prevalent – was not coincidental. Furthermore their website has ZERO examples of someone discriminated against because of Christianity – but 50% is LGBTI….I know the narrative. I know the code. And so do most people. I have had numerous politicians, journalists and others (including secularists) say that they agreed with me. But anyway by Police Scotland’s own standards it doesn’t matter what they intended it matters what was perceived….that is their law! Hoisted by their own petard…

      3. “if you look more closely at the One Scotland site you will see that you are wrong … e.g. have abuse shouted at them because of their beliefs or religious dress … This is what the poster relates to … this is not an example of anti Christian ideology, although the clumsy execution has clearly led many of you to believe otherwise”

        So if I shout out something “clumsy” that is wrongly perceived as abuse at someone prone to take offence, allegedly because of their beliefs or religious dress, and then whisper rapidly the disclaimer “please see website for details, terms and conditions apply, this is what my shouted comment relates to”, I’m in the clear? I won’t get arrested? It’s the offended would-be victim’s own silly fault that he didn’t “look more closely” at my website, before taking offence at the words I shouted, despite my whispered disclaimer cautioning the necessity of this before taking unnecessary offence?

        Oh well, I’m glad you’ve cleared up that little misunderstanding. I only wish your explanation made me feel safer, “spreading” my Christian “hate” in Scotland.

    2. “I think you have misunderstood the poster”

      Victims don’t misunderstand. What they feel is fact, in hate law.

      I felt it too. So did others.

      Speech that made us feel alarmed, harassed, distressed, rejected, offended, intimidated, stereotyped, stigmatised, victimised, second-class citizens, threatened, persecuted, hated and unwelcome, like this, was, by definition, hate speech, merely because of how it made us feel. Those are the modern rules of the game. Understanding and misunderstanding simply don’t enter into it. Feelings is the new legal criterion. The police are busted. See you in court.

  13. I’m in England, so probably can’t do anything official about this. Could someone in Scotland write a complaint comparing the poster to the following?
    “Dear paedophiles, you can’t spread your homosexual perversion here. Get your pride out of Scotland.”
    The sentence above is technically just against paedophilia, including paedophilia of men against boys. So, in theory it is acceptable. But we all know that if such posters appeared in Scotland there would (rightly) be outcry that it is saying that homosexuality is associated with paedophilia, and therefore encouraging hatred and even violence against homosexuals. There is no doubt that whoever put up such posters would be charged with hate crime.
    The parallel with the “Dear Bigots” poster is plain. (Although would probably have to be spelled out very plainly to the powers that be.)
    I know the “Get your pride out of Scotland” sentence is a little clumsy and doesn’t quite work. But it is trying to show up a parallel to the “End of sermon” sentence, and show that they are purposely raising associations in people’s minds that denigrate a certain section of the community.

  14. So called hate crime prevention bodies often have to encourage members of the public to lodge complaints, so as to justify their own existence.

    1. “So-called hate crime prevention bodies often have to encourage members of the public to lodge complaints, so as to justify their own existence.” [Roscoe74]

      That touches upon the reason I hope that David really has reported this poster directly, rather than that he is merely referring to his blog post, as a sort of open letter referral of the poster – an open letter which Police Scotland is unlikely to reply to. And I hope that he will publish the response.

      For the same reason, I hope that David will tell us how he made his complaint, e.g. to which police email address he emailed the text of his blog post, or other text (what other text?), so that as many of his readers as possible can make complaints about that poster themselves, in their own words.

      As touching the question of whether you have to live in Scotland in order to complain, you certainly don’t, legally. If you feel intimidated by the poster, as I did (even though I live in Devon), there is nothing to stop you telling Police Scotland that. You can also write to the tourist board, asking if it is still safe for people of faith to take holidays in Scotland, in view of the police hate speech against people of faith expressed in that poster. But that might not show up on the statistics we will later ask for under the Freedom of Information Act, as to how many complaints there have been instigated by that hate poster.

      1. John – if you read the article you will see that I have reported it to the police and I posted a link for others to do the same….

      2. Thank you David. I see the link now, not before the text of your complaint, but after it, in a quasi-postscript.

        Your complaint was the right length, and you were right not to go into other aspects of what you were complaining about. But another talking point is what is wrong with the whole concept of reporting “hate non-crime” to the police in the first place.

        The video of the radio interview hits that nail on the head.

  15. I was very unpleasantly surprised when I saw the posters, and felt intimidated and threatened by them, without any exaggeration at all.
    I’ve filled in the hate-crime incident form describing my feelings and sent it off – thanks very much David for providing the link.
    I hope lots of people will do the same.

    1. I have also sent off TWO hate crime reports. I sent two, because I sent one in as a witness to the publication of a poster that incited religious hatred, and then sent a second in my capacity as a victim of the same poster.

      I addressed in the text of my reports, which were identical except as regards my status (witness or victim), the issue that I lived outside Scotland, and had only seen the poster on the internet.

      I will post the text of my hate crime reports here if David asks me too. I intend to publish that content on my own blog. You’ll get an email with a link if you add yourself as a follower before I get round to this.

      The more the merrier.

      As you say, the alarm, intimidation, distress and offence are not at all contrived. I too genuinely think that the introduction of faith-policing is a dangerous new development.

  16. orwell wrote his book in 1948 and it was an allegory of what was going on in the Soviet Union. Never the less, I take Davids point. We are not allowed to disagree, disagreement is considered a hate crime. Our society has no respect for God or what he has revealed and the present situation is the result

  17. Dear David,

    I’ve been struck by the bitterness of this issue, hence my anonymity. I’ll try and be brief. There were two things that came to mind while following your polemic – 1. ‘Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars’, and 2. “While you are proclaiming peace with your lips, be careful to have it even more fully in your heart.”

    Anyway, not having heard of you before, (having come across your name on a Facebook post), I did some homework and listened fully to a 45min. sermon of yours on sexuality. I followed your theological reasoning concerning the Word of God, The Fall and the natural and unnatural state of our being. However, I found your pronouncement on people who are ‘same-sex-attracted’ ie gay, nonsensical. You argued that gay people just ought to be celibate based on Paul in Romans warnings against lust. Not love, but lust. was Paul writing here about love? No. Who are you to deny God-given love, agape or otherwise to God’s homosexuals. Yes, they are God’s children too. In the healing of the Centurion’s servant, there was no condemnatory ‘go and sin no more’. Christ approved of the Centurion’s remarkable faith.

    Unfortunately, in the same sermon you then went onto put paedophiles in the same category as homosexuals. To me, this putting together of these two groups is unacceptable to any ‘norms’ of cohesive society, however sinful you may think that society and its laws are. Given that the Christian community is a broad community, I think that it is a tad ironic that you both use and find shelter beneath that tolerant umbrella of a community to air your views, to a wider (and in the main, tolerant) society unchallenged from your position within a church. Also, as you should well know, it is not for you to judge. You have effectively said that my own son is no more than a paedophile, and that I am just to accept this? To me, this actually does constitute a hate crime and that yes, in balance, the poster is probably aimed at a ‘Christian’ like you.

    And so, in this matter, I can empathise more with the Scottish Goverment in this instance, rather than with your explicit bigoted interpretations and faux indignation.

    Always willing to listen and God bless,

    1. Thanks….a couple of corrections. Paul is not speaking about lust. He is speaking (as in the rest of the bible) about homosexual sex. You also seem to be confusing agape with sex. What does the healing of the centurion’s have to do with anything? Surely you have not bought into the propaganda that he was gay?! I don’t put paedophiles in the same category as homosexuals – unless by category you mean ‘sexuality’ and then that is true…but I would also put hetrosexuals in the that category. Please don’t try to find extreme things to get outraged about.

      I have not said that your son is a paedophile. Don’t lie.

      And don’t write ‘God bless’ after you have just lied about me. How about doing the blessing instead?

      I do however appreciate that you are willing to listen…I hope that you will.

      1. Thank you David for publishing my critical comment. That is appreciated.

        You say Paul is NOT speaking about lust. Here are the verses themselves that you will know well – It seems to me is talking about lust AND homosexual relations.

        26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

        Also, you know full well I did not say that you said ‘my son was a paedophile’. What I said in the actual text of my comment above was that in your sermon, ‘you have effectively said that my own son is no more than a paedophile’ I did not lie. You fabricated your sentence yourself.

        God bless

      2. I always publish critical comments – unless they are abusive or off topic…

        God is saying that homosexual practice is always unnatural and shameful.

        The difference between ‘my son was a paedophile’ and you ‘effectively said my son was a paedophile’ is tiny. Please don’t disrespect either me or yourself by playing such silly semantics.

    2. I am sorry about the business over your son. However, you ought to take that up with David privately.

      The poster complained of doesn’t incite hatred only of David Robertson. If it only incited hatred of David, it would not meet the definition of a hate crime. Being David Robertson isn’t a one-man protected characteristic.

      Are you really trying to defend Police Scotland’s hate crime, of which I and every religious person is a victim too, by drafting a “straw man” summary in a few sentences of your own words, of a 45 minute-long sermon of David’s, and then arguing (not particularly convincingly) that that sermon is also a hate crime, to the extent that your summary of the sermon is truthful?

      I am not David. I have also reported this hate crime on the part of Police Scotland. How do you defend the hate crime of Police Scotland, as I have drafted my report of it published on my JohnAllman.UK blog under the heading “Police Scotland’s own hate crime”? You cannot defend the police, or change the subject, by attacking one of my sermons, because I’m not a preacher of sermons.

      You appear to be arguing that it is OK for a police force to incite hatred of all religious people, because one particular religious person, David Robertson, once preached a sermon that offended you and your son! That argument of yours is identical in structure to a parody of a far-right argument that it is OK to incite hatred of all Moslem people, because there have been a couple of cities in which a number of Moslem people have formed rape gangs that recruited schoolgirls into prostitution.

    3. Whoever you are. Are you suggesting the Bible is a source of hate preaching and ought to be banned? Or are you saying you know better what it says and means better than orthodox Christians down the centuries ? You seem to be twisting the truth for your own hateful ends. Clearly you don’t accept the we are all sinners, and to you perhaps even to say so is to preach hate, whereas it is a most loving thing to do as it points to Jesus, God becoming human to live and die as a substitute in our place and be raised for sinner,s not the righteous. All so we can be in union with Him. Do you know Him?
      You may be astonished with this Good News summary from John Piper, that God saves us from God.!
      You have clearly judged David Robertson in your own superior righteousness. And maybe you are asserting your own moral superiority over a thrice Holy, Trinitarian God.
      God is the Holy Judge, not David Robertson. How do you stand before God in your own righteousness? David Roberston stands before Him clothed in the righteousness of Christ, justified by and in union with Christ, under the great Good News that Christ is the propitiation for our sins.
      I have Christian friends who have homosexual, unbelieving, offspring, and have a great mutually supportive relationship, but the offspring know that our friends disapprove of their offspring’s sexual activity. There is no hatred either way, fa,r far from it.
      By the way, what about, adultery which may be “loving”, is it hateful to be opposed to it, or polyamory, or polygamy, or abortion, or brother marrying brother?
      But there are not degrees of sinfulness, as they are all are manifestations of not loving God above all things, all people, all other relationships., turning from Him in rebellion.
      It’s seems that you do not know and love the fullness of the Gory of God in Jesus Christ.
      Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m willing to listen.

    4. Given the tendency of vigilanties to get things wrong — remember the paediatrician driven from her home in 2007 because her job description was misunderstood — I can understand why there is a sensitivity about confusion of terms. However, vigilantism is fickle and falsely accusing someone of implying that homosexuals are paedophiles is dangerous. Be ashamed.

      However, there are paederastic homosexuals who will openly campaign for the lowering of the age of consent once the recreational outrage of the middle classes has had its fill. Calling out all those who disapprove as hate-filled bigots is akin to killing the messenger who brings unwelcome news.


      1. I believe the original goal was the abolition of ages of consent, rather than the lowering of them. Some of those associated, e.g. Tachell and Hewitt, backed out of that, and that ambition has been buried, for the time being.

      2. One day I will tell the story of the discussion I had with several Tatchell supporters who were arguing for no age of consent as ‘children should be able to experiment sexually’!

  18. Well done for reporting these posters as hate incidents because that’s exactly what they are. ‘End of sermon’ is absolutely disgraceful.
    Regarding this bit:
    ‘Don’t come back to this country…you are not welcome’.
    I once had a letter published in a Scottish newspaper. Shortly afterwards I received a letter from someone in Edinburgh. In the course of the letter he advised me to go back to where I came from, by which, as I have an Irish surname, I presume he meant Ireland. Now I have lived in England and Wales and Scotland but I have never set foot on Irish soil so his advice was a bit difficult to follow. But, perhaps the police might regard it as a hate incident.

    1. Why not follow David’s example, by reporting to Police Scotland Police Scotland’s own hate crime? That’s what I have done. You can read my submission, which explains why I don’t have to live in Scotland to report a hate crime in Scotland, here:

      Police Scotland’s own hate crime

      If you report the same crime, be sure to save a copy of what you write. The Police Scotland system doesn’t send you a copy of your report after you submit it as you’d expect it to.

      Then please tell us in a comment on my blog post what you said in your own report of the hate crime. And here, if David doesn’t mind.

      There’s also a petition to sign, asking Police Scotland to “Stop spewing your hate speech against religious people”, citing and quoting the poster that aroused David’s sense of civic duty. This wording deliberately parodies typical social justice warrior speech.

  19. A note of caution. How are they recorded, in categories, and made by and against whom? I recall that that all the signatories for the Coalition 4 Marriage campaign, against SSM were counted by the UK Gvt as only one!
    I can foresee that if a large number of Christians make a report report, the posters could be spun by the Scottish Gvt and Police as a huge success , having increased the number of complaint exponentially!

    1. Hi Geoff

      You wrote, “the posters could be spun by the Scottish Gvt and Police as a huge success, having increased the number of complaint[s]”

      Please don’t worry your pretty head about this possibility, providing you with an excuse to do nothing. We can always ask them, under the Freedom of Information Act, how many of the extra complaints that were attributable to the posters that they boast increased the total number of complaints, were complaints about the posters themselves. That’ll get ’em! (We may already know the answer – see below.)

      Utilitarianism – what’ll happen during the rest of eternity if I do this or that – is a problematic ethic. Please just do what is right on other criteria, including reporting this poster as a hate crime on the part of Police Scotland (if you agree that it was hate crime), and DOCUMENTING that you have done this, by please adding a comment to my blog post “Police Scotland’s own hate crime”, including the reference number and the text of your complaint, without worrying that harm may result from your attempts to do good, because of somebody else’s sinful spin on it, using your virtue as ammunition in support of their vice, as you fear they might. What you fear may never happen. The consequences of acquiescing are dire.

      1. Clearly John, you are not a man of discernment, from your description of my head. Not as green as I am cabbage looking may be nearer the Mark. But that is so hateful to cabbages, I think I’ll report myself.
        Reminds my of a reputed exchange between Churchill and the House Speaker. Sir, you are drunk. Madame, you are ugly: tomorrow I’ll be sober.

  20. Well done David for bringing this to our attention. This is a sinister change in rhetoric by Police Scotland and the SNP Government. It must be resisted by all those who want freedom of speech to be upheld. Silence and complacency are inexcusable in these days.

    1. Have you reported that poster as a hate crime yourself yet? David is to be taken as a leader, not a performer. We must follow him, as team members, not remain idle and silent spectators. We can leave that role to the saints who have already gone before us.

  21. I was just about to watch a video of cute kittens on youtube (don’t think worse of me, it’s a great way to relax) when up popped one of those adverts that you can’t stop until it’s run for several seconds. It was a video version of one of these posters.
    The black and white sheet is unpleasant, but less so than being confronted by aggressively menacing actors. It may be from the Government and Police but the whole vibe is much more blackshirt vigilante than custodian of civility.

      1. I’d imagine that the ad would be on a shared rotating playlist. When the software decides it’s time to play an ad, it picks up the next ad on that list. If so, it is as good as random, which ad one sees, when one is due to see an ad.

      2. Sorry, I can’t. All I really know or assume is that it must have been tailored for me somehow, since youtube tailors all the videos it offers you, on the basis of what you’ve watched in the past. Those kitten videos are often American or else mixes from all over the world, but the ads that pop up at the beginning don’t seem to have much particular relation to them .
        I would definitely have kept it if I’d known how to, but unfortunately my IT skills are rudimentary.

  22. Have you received a reply from the police yet?
    I also reported this hate crime and received a ‘response’ the next day. The closest it got to actually referring to anything I said was:
    ‘The concerns highlighted in your correspondence regarding the campaign material are acknowledged and we will ensure that the Connected Communities Unit within the Scottish Government are informed of your comments.’

    1. We all got the same standard reply…they don’t care. This whole system was set up so that the State approved ‘victims’ list could have lots of reports…

    2. Pardon me for chipping in. I received a similar email from the Diversity Unity myself and replied to it as follows, copying my reply to the One Scotland email address given, retaining the same subject heading.

      Subject: Re: Scottish Government hate crime awareness campaign [OFFICIAL]
      Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:53:02 +0100
      From: John Allman
      CC: One_Scotland_Mailbox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

      I reported a crime, rather than “highlighting concerns”, whatever that means. What happens next? I’d like at least to know that the crime I witnessed, and the crime against me, are not going to be no-crimed, and that they will be reflected in the crime statistics. How do the police usually deal with deadly serious reports of actual crimes that are committed by the police themselves? Do you need me also to make a complaint separately, or is that implicit in a report of a hate crime committed by the police force itself?

      I am deadly serious about this. Please do not try to fob me off. The logo of Police Scotland is on the poster that incited hatred of religious people in general, and caused me distress, to feel threatened and intimidated and alarmed, just seeing an image of the offending poster on the internet. The past week’s news ought to have educated the world of the need to believe victims.

      See: Police Scotland’s own hate crime

      Your Diversity Unit’s unsigned “Good afternoon” reply, which does not address my hate crime report substantively, isn’t good enough. Please don’t try to pass the buck to the government. The crime I reported appears to have been committed by the police jointly with whoever else has put its name to it. Your chief constable is likely to be my defendant if you don’t take my crime report seriously. Let’s make sure it doesn’t come to that, shall we?

      Please deal with this properly, i.e. formally. It matters.

      On 05/10/2018 15:39, SCD DIVERSITYUNIT wrote:
      > OFFICIAL
      > Good afternoon,
      > Thank you for your correspondence dated 4th October 2018, regarding the current Scottish Government hate crime awareness campaign.
      > The campaign, ‘Hate has no home in Scotland’ was launched by the Scottish Government on 24 September 2018 and is scheduled to continue until the end of October 2018. The campaign aims to encourage those who have been victims or witnesses of hate crimes, to speak out and report it.
      > Hate crime is a priority for Police Scotland and we recognise the personal impact it can have on individuals, their families and the wider community. We are aware however that such incidents are often under-reported and we continue to work with key stakeholders and partners to raise awareness and improve public confidence to report. As such, Police Scotland supports the ongoing Scottish Government campaign.
      > The concerns highlighted in your correspondence regarding the campaign material are acknowledged and we will ensure that the Connected Communities Unit within the Scottish Government are informed of your comments. None of your personal details will be passed to the Scottish Government, therefore should you require any further information or wish to raise the matter directly, please make contact by emailing, One_Scotland_Mailbox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

  23. David,
    Thank you for the backbone you have shown and the perception regarding what is happening.
    The naivety which is revealed in some of your commenters is fairly universal, the very reason why the powers that be have the confidence to infringe on the rights of people to differ and to do so publicly.
    As an octogenarian I have lived long enough to have seen the subtlety of the degradation being injected into community life.
    The old story about the frog in the saucepan of cold water is apt : A frog placed in a saucepan of water and slowly brought to boiling will accommodate to the changing temperature until it is too late!

    1. The cliched boiling frog metaphor is so apt in so many situations that one wishes it was based on a biological truth about real frogs.

      The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats that arise gradually rather than suddenly.

      While some 19th-century experiments suggested that the underlying premise is true if the heating is sufficiently gradual,[1][2] according to contemporary biologists the premise is false: a frog that is gradually heated will jump out.[3][4] Indeed, thermoregulation by changing location is a fundamentally necessary survival strategy for frogs and other ectotherms.


      1. John,
        Your explanation is correct, but it doesn’t remove anything of the import of the story!

  24. I asked if my report of the “Dear Bigot” poster hate incident would recieve anything more than an acknowledgement. Here is the last part of the response:

    “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.”

    I think I have been informed that my perception is at fault…

    1. I received an email like that too. It appears to be the stage two fob-off by the looks of it. Was yours from a Chief Inspector John McKenzie by any chance?

      I have already replied to my copy of that stage two fob-off standard letter. You can find all the correspondence between me and the police here, including how I replied to the email like yours. (I made points similar to those you have expressed here. Please have a read.)

      Police Scotland’s bid to wriggle out of hate crime bust

      which is a sequel to

      Police Scotland’s hate crime

      Please catch up on the story so far, in two blog posts, one with my hate crime report, and the other with the police correspondence that tries to wriggle out of their duty to record it as a hate crime they have committed themselves, because it meets their own definition of a hate crime.

      Because they are obviously using a standard approach on all of us who have reported their hate crime/incident, and there is no sign at all that they are taking our hate crime and/or incident reports at all seriously, I think we ought to be liaising, and team-building for a class action. Standard letters to us are evidence of a standard approach on the part of the police. We must document this, by liaising. A blanket, standard approach, which we are witnessing, is judicially reviewable when there is a duty to consider each and every hate crime report individually, on its own merits.

      I am very frustrated that people are not making good use of the resource I have offered. I feel as though I am trying to herd cats.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: