Final Report January 2016 - FRESh Shropshire

Fairness, Respect, Equality Shropshire Ltd

Scoping research for Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group

Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire

Final Report January 2016

Contents Section Paragraph Subject Page Executive summary 1 1.1. Background 1 1.2. Key findings and recommendations 2 Introduction 4 Aims and scope of the research 5 3 3.1. Aims 3.2. Scope 6 4 What are hate incidents and crimes? 5 Research methodology 8 Desk review of other research 9 6.1. Background Hate incident and crime reporting and policy: 6 6.2. 10 other research 6.3. Age and ageism 14 6.4. Alternative lifestyles, cultures, appearance 15 6.5. Disability and disablism 16 6.6. Domestic abuse 19 Race, ethnicity, nationality and racism 20 6.7. Racism in Shropshire 22 6.8. Religion or belief 23 6.9. Sex and sexism 24 6.10. Sexual orientation, homophobia and biphobia 26 6.11. Transgender and transphobia 28 7 Agency workshop 30 Survey analysis and outcomes 31 8.1. Background 8 8.2. Limitations of survey 33 8.3. Analysis of survey Feedback from FRESh Equality Forum workshops 9 held on 3rd December 2015 35 9.1. Background 9.2. Workshop on sexism and hate crime Workshop on alternative appearance and hate 9.3. 36 crime 10 Other evidence 11 Conclusions 37 11.1. Understanding hate incidents and crimes Underreporting of hate incidents and crimes in 11.2. 38 Shropshire 11.3. Other observations 40

Section Paragraph Subject 12 Recommendations 12.1. Context 12.2. Structural work to be done in Shropshire 12.3. Recording and reporting 12.4. Local reporting centres 12.5. Education, prevention and campaigning 12.6. Integration with national events 12.7. Support for local groups and networks Recommendations for further research and 12.8. parallel action 13. Indicative costings for further research 13.1. Workshop programme 13.2. Online survey and hate incident quiz 13.3. Campaigning Develop and run street theatre performances 13.4. across Shropshire Training and support for community reporting 13.5. centres 13.6. Project expenses 13.7. Total project costs Ongoing annual training and support for 13.8. community reporting centres Appendix A Additional documents and websites Under-reporting Scoping Research Incident Appendix B Survey: October 2015 Interview summaries and quotes from people Appendix C subjected to hate incidents Appendix D Hate Crime Quiz Workshops held at FRESh Equality Forum on Appendix E 3rd December 2015

©

40

41 42 43 45

46

47 49 49 50 65 69 73 76

Fairness, Respect, Equality Shropshire (FRESh) Ltd 2016. The copyright in this report and its appendices belongs to Fairness, Respect, Equality Shropshire (FRESh) Ltd; all rights reserved. Extracts and quotations from the report and appendices may be used without further permission on condition that the source is referenced: UnderReporting of Hate Incidents in Shropshire – Final Report, FRESh Ltd, January 2016.

1.

Executive summary 1.1. Background In November 2014 FRESh were commissioned by Shropshire’s Hate Crime Reporting Group to carry out scoping research in Shropshire to provide: a) An initial estimate of hate crime underreporting levels in Shropshire b) Evidence about the level of need for full research c) Data on which to base a full research proposal.

One of the winning entries in FRESh’s 2015 Cultural Diversity Day schools poster competition © FRESh 2015

This report presents the findings from the project, which has involved extensive background research into other studies, a half-day workshop with representatives of interested local agencies, a survey conducted through on-line and paper responses, and a series of interviews with people who have been the victims of hate incidents and crimes in the county. Anonymised case studies were abstracted from these interviews. Illustrative extracts are use throughout the report. Data from other sources (including meetings of the Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group, recent FRESh research for the NHS in Shropshire, and feedback from two workshops held at the December 2015 meeting of the FRESh Equality Forum) has been included where appropriate. 1.2. Key findings and recommendations a) There is widespread lack of public understanding of or engagement with hate incidents and crime in Shropshire. A number of messages need be put across to the wider public: What hate incidents are, so they can be recognised That hate incidents are unacceptable. This needs to be a sustained message, encouraging a cultural shift similar to that created by the campaign on drink driving That no incident is trivial; even where it may seem small or trivial. When it is repeated again and again it becomes major and has major repercussions That reporting isn’t just about an individual incident or perpetrator; it’s about building up a picture of how many incidents, where they happen and what kind they are, so that something can be done about hate incidents and crimes. It is important that incidents are reported, even when the names of victims or perpetrators are unknown That incidents can be reported anonymously Where victims can go to be safe (Safe Places 1) and where victims and witnesses can go to report What will happen as a result of reporting.

1

Safe Places are places in the community to which people who have experienced violence or abuse can go for immediate safety and help. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 1

b)

There is a powerful argument for developing a consensus on a wider definition of hate incidents and crimes to include (among others) relevant cases of domestic abuse, harassment and crimes motivated by sexism or hate or prejudice against girls and women, harassment and crimes against homeless people, people with HIV/AIDS and people who are seen as fat.

c)

Underreporting of hate incidents in Shropshire is very likely to be within the range 50% to 70%; leaning towards 70%. This is supported by our desk review, by responses from the small survey sample and by comments from interviewees. If the numbers of hate incidents reported to West Mercia Police in 2012 – 2015 were increased by 70% to allow for those that are likely to have been unreported, the following picture would emerge:

2012 2013 2014 2015

110 107 108 103

367 357 360 343

24 27 21 39

80 90 70 130

12 18 24 19

40 60 80 63

146 152 153 161

Projected

Police figures

Projected

Police figures

Projected

Police figures

Projected

Police figures

Table 1: Projections based on Warwickshire and West Mercia Police figures Shropshire annual hate incidents – 2012 to 2015 2 Race Homophobia Disablism Total

487 507 510 536

The research also highlighted other aspects of underreporting: There is a complex mixture of reasons for victims and witnesses failing to report There are ‘hidden’ hate incident and crime figures – essentially because they are defined as other kinds of incident such as anti-social behaviour, bullying and domestic abuse Incidents reported to national reporting centres may not be included in the police figures for Shropshire Incidents on social media are likely to be reported to Twitter or Facebook rather than to the police or a reporting centre Our research suggests that incidents with multiple triggers (intersectionality) are probably over-represented in figures reported by the police to FRESh and the Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group. Recommendations include: Continuing research is needed into how much and where hate crime is happening Hate incident reporting, recording and management systems and processes should be more joined-up, both within and between organisations Understanding and awareness within organisations of the underlying issues such as disablism, racism, homophobia, etc, need to be improved 2

The statistics on which table 1 is based are supplied to FRESh by Warwickshire and West Mercia Police, and do not include figures for religious discrimination and transphobia. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 2

Work is needed with and within Shropshire’s Deaf community and reporting centres to enable hate incident reporting in British Sign Language. d)

The research raised issues about the prevention of hate incidents and crimes, including: There is a need to develop and run workshops on prevention and how to handle evidence (including social media incidents) with people who are likely to be hate incident victims and their carers This should include adults with learning disabilities and people with mental health issues, Information should be systematically gathered and collated about the impact of hate crimes and incidents on individuals and groups and their direct and indirect impact on services and wider communities, to demonstrate the social and economic value of prevention There is also a need to feed this information into campaigning and training Support should be made available to victims to talk to students in schools, colleges and university about their experiences and the consequences of hate incident and crimes Emphasis is needed on building knowledge about perpetrators, to help inform prevention work.

e)

Knowledge needs to be developed of how best to support victims

f)

There is a need to resource work with existing and potential local groups and networks which provide support to people who are at risk of hate incidents, in order to encourage: Awareness of hate incidents and crimes Reporting of hate incidents and crimes. Examples might include groups which work with women, people from BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) communities, transgender people and other groups without local support networks.

g)

There is a lack of information about whether local third party (community) reporting centres are still operating, and if so who is the contact person for each centre and when staff or volunteers have last been trained. This suggests the need to carry out a review of the work and siting of these centres, which should be located not only by geography, but also on their accessibility for groups with particular (protected) characteristics. There should be clear guidance on what it means to be a reporting centre, and the requirements for organisational commitment, staffing and reporting processes, together with a systematic and sustainable training plan.

h)

Further research is needed on how to support victims of social media hate incidents.

I)

We recommend community-based action research to further these findings. This would disseminate information, train people and raise awareness of hate. It would also generate a statistically more reliable estimate of hate incident under-reporting in Shropshire.

Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 3

2.

Introduction Shropshire is the largest inland county in England. It is intensely rural, with no centre of population larger than 71,000 people. It contains a number of small market towns surrounded by villages, hamlets and agricultural settlements, and conforms to the stereotype of a ‘rural idyll’. Nevertheless it contains pockets of prejudice and discrimination against minority communities, and hate incidents and crimes are an ongoing issue. Shropshire has a county Hate Crime Reporting Group, of which FRESh is a member. The Group has been engaged in an ongoing discussion for several years about the undoubtedly high but unquantified levels of under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire.

In 2012 Shrewsbury Action Against Racism (SAAR) developed a funding proposal for a full research project to establish the level of and reasons for hate crime under-reporting in Shropshire. However, it proved impossible to raise the necessary funding. SAAR merged with FRESh in 2014, and it was decided to develop a proposal for scoping research to estimate likely levels of under-reporting in the county and provide evidence for a full project. In November 2014 this scoping research proposal was submitted to the county Hate Crime Reporting Group, which agreed funding for FRESh to undertake the work. Recorded hate incidents in Shropshire recorded by the police for the period from 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2015 are as follows: Table 2: Annual hate incidents in Shropshire 2012 –2015 (West Mercia Police)

2012 2013 2014 2015

3

Racism Homophobia Disablism Total 110 24 12 146 107 27 18 152 108 21 24 153 103 39 19 161

Table 3 – trends in reported Shropshire hate incidents: January 2012 – December 2015 (West Mercia Police)

Racism

3

Homophobia

Disablism

The figures on which tables 2 and 3 are based are supplied to FRESh by Warwickshire and West Mercia Police, and do not include separate figures for religious discrimination and transphobia. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 4

3.

Aims and scope of the research 3.1. Aims In January 2015 the Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group commissioned FRESh to undertake a scoping research project which aimed to: a) Estimate the number of people who experience hate incidents or crimes in the county over a year, broken down by: Age Sex Disability Sexual orientation Gender reassignment Economic and social status Race Alternative lifestyle Religion or belief b)

Explore the feasibility of proceeding to a full research project to analyse the levels of hate crime under-reporting in the county, analysed by disability, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, transgender identity, economic and social status and alternative lifestyle, and including hate crime against older people (60+) and young people (16 – 25).

c)

Recommend methods to engage with potential participants across the county, and potential research methods to achieve the full aims set out in (b) above).

d)

Produce an estimate of the cost of carrying out such a research project.

3.2. Scope a) Geography With the exception of section 6 (the desk review of other research) this research has focused on the area administered by Shropshire Council, and excludes Telford & Wrekin. However, hate incidents experienced by some survey respondents may have taken place in Telford and Wrekin (see Section 8). b)

4.

Research content The project research objectives are limited. It is a scoping exercise rather than a full research project, and explores broad indicators of the need for full research and the relevance of data for under-reporting produced in other research.

What are hate incidents and crimes? 4.1. There is no universally agreed definition of hate incidents or crimes. Definitions range from the legalese and complex to more simple and broader definitions developed and used in community projects and campaigns. From our work on this project, we believe that the best definitions are the simplest and broadest possible, because they enable both intellectual and emotional understandings of hate incidents.


Page 5

4.2. In the UK, domestic abuse is not usually linked with hate incidents or crimes. However, there are many instances of domestic abuse that could be classed as hate incidents; for example, a transphobic parent abusing their transgender child, or domestic abuse based on sexism or homophobia. If hatred or fear of someone’s perceived characteristics are part of the reason they are abused, than those incidents are essentially hate incidents. Perceptions about characteristics such as age, religion, alternative lifestyle or appearance and even ethnicity could be triggers for this type of domestic abuse. Although it falls outside the scope of this project to explore this topic, we believe it requires further exploration and debate in Shropshire. 4.3. Similarly, sexism is rarely acknowledged as a motive for hate incidents or crimes. However, given the widely evidenced structural pervasiveness of sexism in UK society and media this seems perverse, especially when viewed alongside the increasing focus on the damaging societal nature of hate crime within criminal justice and social policy. 4.4. Examples of definitions: a)

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) ACPO defines a hate incident as “..any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate”. A hate crime is defined as “… any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice 4 or hate.” In these definitions prejudice or hate may be based on characteristics including: Disability Sexual orientation Race Transgender Religion

b)

4

Hidden In Plain Sight Commission (2011) The Commission defines disability-related harassment as: “unwanted, exploitative or abusive conduct against disabled people which has the purpose or effect of either violating the dignity, safety, security or autonomy of the person experiencing it, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment. It includes harassment of the friends and family of disabled people and of people perceived to be disabled. It should be noted that our definition of disability-related harassment goes wider than the definition currently used by the criminal justice system”.

Throughout this report, ‘prejudice’ is taken to mean unjustified negative attitudes about individuals or groups, based on stereotypes and perceptions about their culture and place in society. Common examples include negative views based on race or gender (racism, sexism), but the definition used here includes all groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and some others such as class and alternative lifestyle and appearance. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 6

c)

The Leicester Hate Crime project “A hate crime ...refers to an act of victimisation that you feel was targeted directly towards you because of who you are. This would include a wide range of acts such as being called an abusive name, being bullied, or being physically attacked, to name just a few examples.”

d)

Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group “A hate crime is an offence committed against a person or property, which is motivated by the perpetrator’s hostility and prejudice towards people because they are seen as being different. A hate Incident is an offence which is not a crime, again motivated by the perpetrator’s hostility and prejudice towards people because they are seen as being different. … Hate crime covers race, disability, sexual orientation, faith, age, gender identity, alternative lifestyles, culture and sex.”

e)

Sussex University “A hate crime can be any crime that is perceived by the victim, or a witness, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards an aspect of the victim's identity.”

f)

Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police 2014-2016 Hate Crime Strategy A hate crime is; “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s: race or perceived race (would include nationality, national origin, ethnic origin, race and colour) - Racist Hate Crime. religion or perceived religion - Religious Hate Crime. sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation - Homophobic Hate Crime. disability or perceived disability - Disability Hate Crime. transgender or perceived transgender - Transphobic Hate Crime. Or (An) individual characteristic that makes someone appear different, e.g. alternative lifestyle, culture, physical appearance and style of dress.”

g)

Fairness, Respect, Equality Shropshire (FRESh) Ltd FRESh has reached its own definition over the course of this research, as we have become more aware of the different needs and expectations of the people who experience hate incidents and crimes and of the organisations which have a responsibility to prevent, record and respond to incidents. We now define a hate incident as “... where a person or group of people is insulted, harassed, belittled or attacked because those doing so dislike or hate what they think the victim is, based on seeing them as ‘other’ or ‘not like us’, or as in some way less than themselves.”


Page 7

5.

Research methodology 5.1. The original project proposal did not specify research methods. It emphasised FRESh’s particular interest in hearing ‘unheard voices’, and the subsequent project plan included: Establishing and running a project advisory group early in the process, which would meet to coincide with key milestones in the work and act as a forum for accountability and suggestions Planning and running an Agency workshop to seek views from representatives of different Shropshire groups and agencies on the reasons for non-reporting and the proposed research structure and methods Conducting a desktop review, compiling key findings from other relevant research Assessing the need for, and (if appropriate) developing and running a survey to obtain information about the experiences of people who have been victims of hate incidents Planning and running a research participants’ workshop Drafting and consulting on a draft research report Preparing a final research report. 5.2. A review of progress in August 2015 showed: a) A shortage of volunteers meant that it had not proved possible to establish a project advisory group. However, the project team reported regularly to the county Hate Crime Reporting Group, and twice sought feedback from meetings convened for this purpose. b)

The Agency workshop had produced valuable information and evidence, and had been a useful networking event. (See Section 7 below)

c)

The desktop review (See Section 6 below) was already showing a substantial amount of relevant data from other research on likely levels of under-reporting. In particular: The combined figures from the Police Hate Crime Statistical Bulletin 2014/15 and The Crime Survey for England and Wales (see 6.2 (a) below) suggesting under-reporting at 76% The Truer Picture of Hate Crime in Warwickshire report (see 6.2 (e) below), suggesting under-reporting levels of 50% The major UK-wide Leicester University Hate Crime Research Project, which suggested an overall figure for under-reporting of 70% (see 6.2 (b) below). The Leicester research provides the most reliable statistical evidence for its estimate, and FRESh anticipated that levels of underreporting in Shropshire were likely to be similar.

d)

Despite the likelihood of low response rates, there was a need to develop and run an on-line survey to provide an indication of the reliability of the above figures for use in Shropshire. (see Section 8 below)


Page 8

e)

It had been intended to develop a research participants’ workshop, drawing out and exploring possible themes and questions for a full research project. However, following this review it was felt that it would be more appropriate and productive to undertake a limited number of in-depth interviews with people in Shropshire who had been the victims of different kinds of hate incidents and crimes (see Appendix C and quotes throughout this report). This would enable those reading the report to gain a more in-depth understanding of the personal impacts of hate crimes and incidents, thus complementing and strengthening the quantitative data and enabling a final report that more appropriately fulfilled the project objectives. Recommendations on the feasibility of a full research project, engagement methods and an estimate of the cost would follow. These revised proposals were approved at a specially-convened meeting of members of the Hate Crime Reporting Group and others with an interest, held on 10th September 2015.

6.

f)

As an additional part of the research, FRESh designed a quiz to prompt an understanding of and engagement with hate incidents (see Appendix D). This was piloted twice, once during the Agency workshop and again with the wider public during the annual Cultural Diversity Day in Shrewsbury. As a means of engagement it seemed to work well, raising awareness and sparking interesting discussions.

g)

Finally, two short workshops were conducted at the FRESh Equality Forum held on 3rd December 2015. These explored participants’ views on the definition of ‘hate’ incidents and crimes, and the need to include explicit reference to a wider range of triggers than is the current norm. Feedback from these workshops is summarised in Section 9, and fuller versions are included as Appendix E.

Desk review of other research 6.1. Background This desk review includes projects and research which illustrate the complex nature of hate incidents and crime, raise questions of definition and scope, and highlight the impacts of hate incidents on individuals, agencies and communities. The review is by no means exhaustive, has been compiled as a work in progress and has expanded incrementally throughout the project. Only brief summaries are given here; links are provided to websites and original documents. Appendix A contains more detailed information about some items in this section, and details of several documents and websites which, although not directly relevant to this report, nevertheless contain information which may be of value to those with an interest in these issues.


Page 9

The review has identified several interlinking themes which are likely to impact on Shropshire’s ability to address hate crime in a way that improves community safety and community relations and reduces social exclusion. Among the more significant of these is that although many agencies are making progress in preventing and dealing with hate crime, some still fail to tackle hate incidents appropriately because of underlying systemic issues that include: Lack of joined-up systems and processes and consistent, clear and simple definitions of hate crime and incidents, both within and between organisations Lack of understanding and awareness within some organisations of underlying issues such as disablism, racism, homophobia, and so on No reliable information about how much and where hate crime is happening Anecdotally, underreporting is seen as a major issue. It is apparently universal, with the most reliable estimate being 70% of hate incidents not reported No systematic collation of information about the impact of hate crimes and incidents on individuals and groups, or the direct and indirect impacts on services and wider communities Lack of shared knowledge of how best to support victims and work on prevention strategies with potential victims, especially those who are among the most vulnerable Lack of knowledge about perpetrators. 6.2. Hate incident and crime reporting and policy: other research Section 6.2. contains summaries of reports covering the wider background to reporting and policy on hate incidents and crimes. Sections 6.3. to 6.10. contain summaries of reports about hate incidents and crime attributable to specific trigger characteristics, listed alphabetically. Statistics on hate incidents might appear at first sight to be straightforward. However, figures from West Mercia Police made available regularly to FRESh do not include hate incidents based on gender identity, religion or alternative lifestyle and culture, although they are recorded. After years of work to improve hate crime reporting in Shropshire, it is still unclear which incidents are included in the police reports and which are not. If figures from bullying in schools were included, we would be looking at increased total reported figures, but the bullying figures do not necessarily include reports from Academies 5. Hate incidents can be reported anonymously via the national Crime Stoppers initiative. However, there is no information on whether or how these incidents are included in local figures. As discussed in 4.2. above, some domestic abuse incidents can be classified as hate incidents. The domestic abuse reports summarised in 6.6. below describe how hard it may be to report incidents, which strongly implies it is underreported as an issue in its own right. It is even more unlikely that hate incidents reported as domestic abuse are also logged as hate incidents, so increasing the number of unreported hate incidents.

5

Additionally, these figures are reported for the academic year, whereas other figures may follow financial or calendar years. The figures cannot therefore be easily compared. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 10

A similar argument can be made about reports of discrimination, some instances of which may be classed as hate incidents. However, not all cases of discrimination are hate incidents, and we think it likely that many of those that are will be reported only as discrimination. Another issue likely to distort Shropshire hate incident statistics is that incidents may frequently be classified as anti-social behaviour. Lastly, hate incidents on social media have no geographical basis, and Shropshire residents are affected by hate messages from other areas. Such incidents are likely to be reported (if at all) to Twitter or Facebook rather than to the police or a reporting centre. Thus, many such incidents are unlikely to be included in hate crime and incident figures. The following list provides brief summaries of reports on the infrastructure, policy and background to hate incident and crime reporting: a) Hate Crime, England and Wales 2014/15, Statistical Bulletin 05/15 (Home Office, 13th October 2015) [Download here] This Bulletin provides an annual overview of hate crime in England and Wales. Key points are drawn both from hate crimes recorded by the police and from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is based on interviews with members of the public. Police recorded crime In 2014/15, there were 52,528 hate crimes recorded by the police, an increase of 18% over the 44,471 hate crimes recorded in 2013/14, of which: 42,930 (82%) were race hate crimes; 5,597 (11%) were sexual orientation hate crimes; 3,254 (6%) were religion hate crimes; 2,508 (5%) were disability hate crimes; and 605 (1%) were transgender hate crimes. The summary notes that action taken by police forces to improve recording of crime, a greater awareness of hate crime and an improved willingness of victims to report are likely have contributed to the increase in hate crimes recorded compared with the previous year. The 2014/15 Crime Survey for England and Wales [Go to website] shows: There were an estimated 222,000 hate crimes on average per year for race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity. The most commonly reported motivating factor in these hate crime incidents was race, with disability the second most common motivator CSEW respondents stated that 48% of hate crimes came to the attention of the police, higher than for overall crime (40%). Hate crime victims were less likely to be satisfied by the police handling of incidents, with 52% being very or fairly satisfied compared with 73% for crime overall. It is noteworthy that the number of hate crimes recorded by the police is only some 24% of those identified in the Crime Survey for England and Wales, suggesting a very high level of under-reporting.


Page 11

b)

Leicester University Hate Crime Research Project: 2012 - 2014 [Go to website] Because of the significance of this research, details of the key findings and recommendations are set out in Appendix A. This groundbreaking research into acts of hate, prejudice and targeted hostility is Britain’s biggest-ever study of hate crime victimisation. It explored the nature and forms of these acts and their impact on victims, families and wider communities. It estimated the level of underreporting of hate incidents in the UK to be 70%. The project took a very broad view of hate crime, engaged with over 4,000 people from a diverse range of backgrounds, and recorded the views of 1,421 hate crime victims. Associated publications include a series of themed briefing papers and a Victims’ Manifesto to which organisations are asked to pledge support (see Appendix A).

c)

Nottingham Commission into Hate Crime June 2014 [Go to website] Campaigning alliance Nottingham Citizens launched an independent civic inquiry into hate crime in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, appointing a team of six Citizen Commissioners to conduct the largest piece of peer-led research into hate crime in the UK. Official statistics suggested only 400 hate crimes and incidents occurred per quarter in Nottingham City and a further 400 in Nottinghamshire. Yet a survey of 130 taxi drivers over one week identified 696 incidents of racist abuse. A report commissioned by the Police and Crime Commissioner found 27% of Black, Minority and Other Ethnic people had been victims of hate crime in the previous twelve months.

d)

Stop Hate [Go to website] Stop Hate UK is a national organisation providing independent, confidential and accessible reporting and support for hate crime victims, witnesses and third parties in specific areas in England, not including Shropshire. Their core activities include awareness-raising, campaigning and delivering projects on issues relevant to hate crime and equality. Stop Hate Statistical Report 2013 – 14: Summary Nearly a third of Stop Hate UK contacts were via electronic reporting. They received 459 reports where disability was a motivating factor, and 349 where race was a motivating factor. These two strands remained the most often-reported hate incidents. They also received 27 incident reports relating to gender identity hate crime - an area that is very underreported and is a significant increase on the previous year. The most commonly reported incidents across all of the monitored strands continued to be verbal abuse and threatening behaviour. While the numbers of reported incidents of religion, faith or belief hate crimes remain relatively low, Muslim victims were most likely to report.


Page 12

e)

The Truer Picture of Hate Crime in (2015) [More information available from [email protected]] Birmingham University was commissioned by Warwickshire County Council’s Community Safety Team to research the prevalence of hate crime in Warwickshire and how agencies should respond. The research attempted to establish what truer local reporting figures might look like by analysing information from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the Crime Survey England and Wales, and the Leicester Hate Crime Project. Key findings included: There had been 703 reported hate crimes in Warwickshire in 2011 – 14, the vast majority of which were racial in nature Police data recording was patchy, with some details missing Over the previous three years there was an overall trend towards lower numbers of hate crimes reported to the police Based on national and international models, it was estimated that only 50% of hate crime was currently being reported. Even so, the projected 'truer' level of hate crime in Warwickshire was below the national average (sic) The research suggested that victims lack confidence in the police doing or being able to do anything about hate crime. However, a majority that did report to the police were either satisfied or very satisfied with the outcome The research also suggested that sexual orientation hate crime is more under-reported than other hate crime types. The data set for gender reassignment was too small to enable solid conclusions Police recording, coupled with awareness-raising of hate crime among the general public and professionals needed improving.

f)

Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police 2014-2016 Hate Crime Strategy [Download here] This strategy builds on existing policing practice in Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police to reinforce that victims will be fully supported and their complaints will be fully and fairly investigated. Seven areas of work are intended to reduce harm, increase confidence and target those who cause harm: Raising awareness of what hate crime is and how to report it, understanding how it will be dealt with and promoting an increase in recording Prevention through education, in partnership with schools, community groups and other partners Effective partnership activity through promoting hate incident partnerships (HIPS), leading to better case identification and management and effective information sharing Victim-led response, through appropriate support plans that ensure victims’ wishes are taken into account Achieving appropriate justice outcomes, by taking victims’ wishes into account and ensuring that hatred is presented as an aggravating factor at court


Page 13

Key to building trust and confidence is the development of a communications strategy to publicise successes and the work of hate incident partnerships (HIPS), and being more effective in targeting engagement work Increased reporting in the short and medium term, leading to a longerterm reduction as the true picture is more effectively addressed 6.3. Age and ageism a) Hate Crime and Crimes Against Older People Report 2010-2011 – (Crown Prosecution Service, 2011) [Download here] This report acknowledges that hate crime can impact on any community and is often described as a “message crime” – “you don’t count, don’t belong, don’t fit in, aren’t welcome”. When the report was published, data suggested that the number of hate crime cases referred by the police for charging, the number of concluded prosecutions and the number of convictions had fallen. However, the proportion of successful outcomes increased, as did the proportion of guilty pleas. The report provides information and statistics (broken down by police region), and acknowledges that hate crime is under-reported. b)

Suffering in silence: Children and unreported crime - 2014 (Victim Support & International Centre at the University of Bedfordshire.) [Download here] This inquiry was commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Victims and Witnesses of Crime in response to findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales. This indicated that only 20% of children and young people who experience theft or violent crime report it to the police. Victim Support undertook the research in partnership with the University of Bedfordshire. Although not focused on hate crime, the findings nevertheless include information on crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice, and provide valuable insights into levels and reasons for the under-reporting of crimes against children and young people. The research found that: Children and young people experience much higher rates of crime than police data suggests Children and young people don’t always know what constitutes crime and how to report it The context in which victimisation occurs affects the likelihood of reporting crime Children and young people fear repercussions of reporting Children and young people may blame themselves for their own victimisation Negative perceptions about the police can deter reporting of crime.


Page 14

6.4. Alternative lifestyles, cultures, appearance An alternative lifestyle can be defined as being part of a culture that exists outside mainstream culture, such as emos, punks, hippies, goths, metallers and so on. The decision of police forces to include alternative cultures among the recognised triggers for hate incidents and crimes followed the shockingly brutal murder of Sophie Lancaster in 2007, when she and her boyfriend Robert Maltby were attacked by a group of young men in their mid teens while walking through Stubbylee Park in Bacup, Rossendale in Lancashire. They were assaulted because of their attackers’ hatred of their Goth appearance. Sophie received severe head injuries, went into a coma, and died thirteen days later. For the purposes of this research we have also included in this category people who may not have made a choice about how they live or their appearance, but whose lives nevertheless fall outside what are seen as mainstream cultural norms. Examples include people who are homeless and people who are seen as fat. We have not been able to find any research on hate incidents triggered because victims are seen as fat. However, one response to the survey was from somebody who had been abused because of prejudice about their weight. Given the low overall survey response, the fact that there was even one response on this issue emphasises the need to review its inclusion as a recognised trigger for hate incidents. a)

Living in Fear: Violence and Victimisation in the Lives of Single Homeless People (Newburn and Rock, Crisis / LSE 2005) [Download here] This 2005 study is included because FRESh’s conversations with homeless and vulnerable people for this research show that its findings continue to be relevant in Shropshire in 2015. The study was based on interviews with men and women living on the street or in temporary accommodation in London, Oxford and Cambridge. It found that homeless people suffer from acute levels of poverty and social exclusion. They were also victims of exceptionally high levels of day-to-day violence, crime and victimisation, leaving them traumatised and living in fear. Much of


Page 15

this was committed by members of the general public, and for the most part it went unreported. People who were on the streets or out in the open were especially vulnerable, and some temporary housing settings carried their own risks. Homeless people are often seen as a cause of crime, but the research suggested that they were far more likely to be victims than perpetrators. Few homeless people felt confident making use of existing services and support within the community. The findings pointed to a system-wide failure to address the needs of homeless people. 6.5. Disability6 and disablism a) At risk, yet dismissed; The criminal victimisation of people with mental health problems (Victim Support, 2013) [Download here] This report looks at the findings from a three-year research study exploring the extent and impact of criminal victimisation among people with mental health problems, as well as their experiences with the criminal justice system and other services after crimes (October 2013) 43 % of respondents felt that crimes were motivated by the offender’s attitude towards the victim’s race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or disability (hate crime), eight times more likely than the control group. A quarter of people with serious mental illness described their experience as hate crime specifically related to their mental illness Contrary to popular perceptions, people with mental health problems are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of crime, and they are most likely to be victimised by someone they know. They are more likely to be repeatedly victimised and to experience a range of different crimes. Not only are people with mental health problems at a high risk of victimisation, but the impact of crime is substantial and greater than for those without mental health problems. Among other recommendations are: All police officers should be trained to recognise hate incidents (even if the victim has not identified them) and ask open questions to encourage people to tell them what has happened Responses for people with mental health problems should be prioritised, especially around repeat victimisation and hate crime, and hate crime prevention should continue to be addressed.

6

Throughout this report, disability is defined as the systemic exclusion of people with physical impairments, health issues, mental health problems and learning difficulties from the full benefits and resources of society. It is caused by physical barriers, negative attitudes and intentional or unintentional discrimination. This means that society, and not people’s poor health or impairments, disables people. Disablism is defined as discrimination against people based on prejudice against their disability. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 16

b)

Getting Away with Murder: Disabled people’s experiences of hate crime in the UK (Katharine Quarmby, Scope, August 2008) [Download here] This report highlights the prevalence of disablist hate crime, and the failure of authorities to respond appropriately to it. It contains a number of case studies of extreme hate crimes against disabled people, and the inadequate or inappropriate responses to them. The report cites the casual disablism still permeating society as a cause of the widespread belief that it is legitimate to treat disabled people differently, and to deny them equal access to the things that others take for granted. This links with disability hate crime being fuelled by casual, often unknowing prejudice, and not being recognised or challenged. The report sets out an agenda for action to prevent and tackle disability hate crime, and makes detailed recommendations including: Tackling disablist attitudes and behaviours as soon as they start Eliminating casual and institutional disablism Ensuring disabled people have equal access to justice Empowering disabled people and their organisations to co-produce effective responses to hate crime with statutory agencies Improving data collection and research into the prevalence of disability hate crime.

c)

Hidden in plain sight - Inquiry into disability-related harassment: Equality & Human Rights Commission - August 2011 [Download here] On 23 October 2007 the bodies of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francecca Hardwick were found in a burnt-out car in a lay-by near their home. The inquest into their deaths concluded that Fiona had killed herself and her daughter “...due to the stress and anxiety regarding her daughter’s future, and ongoing antisocial behaviour”. Following this incident, Hidden in Plain Sight was set up as an extensive inquiry into disability-related harassment.


Page 17

The report highlighted “...systemic failures by organisations in preventing disability-related harassment and in tackling it effectively when it happens”. It also supported previous findings of significant under-reporting of disabilityrelated harassment and explored the many reasons for this, including lack of ‘joined-up’ systems and processes, a general lack of understanding and awareness of disability, and the absence of any real idea of how much and where harassment is happening and of what happens to victims. d)

Living in Fear: better outcomes for people with learning disabilities and autism: (Beadle-Brown, J., Richardson, L., Guest, C., Malovic, A., Bradshaw, J and Himmerich, J: Canterbury: Tizard Centre, University of Kent.) November 2013 [Download here] Following Hidden in Plain Sight (see 6.5.(b) above), this project aimed to explore the views and experiences of people with learning disabilities and autism and establish the numbers and characteristics of people experiencing victimisation and its impact on their wellbeing. It also explored the views, experiences and difficulties faced by the police in responding to and dealing with reports of victimisation. Key themes included: The use, understanding of and reaction to the term ‘hate crime’ The nature of victimisation when out and about in the community, and the fear of such incidents People’s experiences and views when they have reported incidents to the police Experiences of reporting to other organisations and their responses The impact on people of bad things that happen to them The report provides an in-depth exploration of the issues from the perspectives of both victims and local agencies.

We include below two reports dealing with aspects of discrimination and hatemotivated incidents against people living with HIV/AIDS in Britain. This is another trigger that is not often addressed in discussion of hate incidents and crimes, but which is based on deep-seated prejudices and affects a large group of people in the UK. e)

21st Century HIV; Personal accounts of living with HIV in modern Britain (Terrence Higgins Trust, 2011) [Download here] This report is a collection of very powerful case studies of people living with HIV/AIDS in Britain including the impact of stigma on their lives.

f)

What do you need? 2007-2008: Findings from a national survey of people with diagnosed HIV (Weatherburn et al - Sigma Research/ Terrence Higgins Trust, 2009) [Download here] During the previous twenty-five years the needs of people with diagnosed HIV and our understanding of them has changed dramatically. However, no consistent approach to describing needs had been adopted. This 2009 study provides an insight into the needs of people with diagnosed HIV living in the UK, based on a sample of 1,777 people.


Page 18

Among its findings was that 36% per cent of people living with HIV experienced discrimination from family members, their own community, or from doctors or health care professionals. When asked to describe their problems with discrimination from members of their own communities most respondents reported verbal abuse including ‘jokes’, threats and gossip. … Although not the experience of the majority, some people reported physical assaults and property damage against them because of their HIV status, their sexuality or their migrant status. 6.6. Domestic abuse As discussed in paragraph 4.2 above, domestic abuse is not currently included in Shropshire’s definition of hate incidents or hate crimes. However, where it is the result of prejudice based on sexism, homophobia, transphobia and possibly other hate crime triggers, we believe it should be more explicitly included. a)

Everyone’s business: Improving the police response to domestic abuse (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary 2014) [Download here] This report found that while most police forces and crime commissioners say that domestic abuse is a priority for their areas, this was not being translated into operational reality. HMIC was concerned that despite progress in this area over the last decade, not all police leaders were ensuring that domestic abuse was a priority in their forces. The report noted that the extent and nature of domestic abuse remains shocking. Domestic abuse causes serious harm and constitutes a considerable proportion of overall crime. It costs society an estimated £15.7 billion a year. 77 women were killed by their partners or ex-partners in 2012/13. In the UK, one in four of young people aged 10 to 24 reported that they experience domestic abuse and during their childhood. Police forces reported that crime relating to domestic abuse constituted some 8% of all recorded crime in their areas, and one third of these recorded assaults with injury. On average the police received an emergency call relating to domestic abuse every 30 seconds.

b).

A link in the chain: The role of friends and family in tackling domestic abuse (Citizens Advice, 2015) [Download here] Although this UK report is not ostensibly about hate crime, it explores the role of informal networks (friends, family, colleagues and neighbours) in minimising domestic abuse, echoing themes which also apply to the support of hate incident victims. The report emphasises that victims face complex personal and practical barriers to admitting abuse and accessing help. Many victims struggle to acknowledge and disclose what’s happening to them, and many remain invisible to services, never accessing effective support. Few engage with the police or specialist services. Abusive relationships often escalate without being recognised or discussed, and victims can become increasingly isolated.


Page 19

Friends and family are most likely to be aware of abuse early on. Informal networks can offer help by encouraging victims to contact specialist services or the police, or by offering practical and emotional support. However, informal networks face complex barriers to engaging: they may struggle to recognise abuse, and feel ill-equipped to intervene, fearful of causing more problems or nervous about intruding. c).

Safer Shropshire Multi Agency Domestic Abuse Strategy 2015-2017 [Download here] The strategy suggests that: “... Based on the fact that one in four women are likely to experience domestic abuse, and with .... 121,900 women over 16 in Shropshire, some 30,475 women (in the county) will experience domestic abuse during their lifetime. (Review of Domestic abuse Provision in Shropshire 2009) and; “Annually over 12,000 women will have experienced some form of physical and/ or psychological abuse...” (Shropshire Domestic Abuse Strategy 2006-2009) The above figures are for women only; men also experience domestic abuse.

6.7. Race, ethnicity, nationality and racism As elsewhere in the UK, hate incidents and crimes motivated by racism constitute by far the highest proportion of reported hate incidents and crimes in Shropshire. a)

Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: 2013) [Download here] This European report analyses Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of antisemitic hate crime and discrimination in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It is based on responses, 1,468 of which were from the UK, to an online survey by selfidentified Jewish people aged 16 or over who, at the time of the survey, were living in one of the survey countries. The report echoes wider concerns about under-reporting of hate crime, “…Previous… research on the criminal victimisation of minorities shows that only small proportions... who have suffered a crime committed with a bias or discriminatory motive report (them) to any organisation.... Without reporting, ... hate crime will remain unprosecuted and therefore invisible.”

b)

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment – Shropshire, Herefordshire, Telford and Wrekin and Powys, Revised Final Report: July 2008 (Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Birmingham University) [Download here] This assessment found high levels of discrimination and harassment against Travelling people in the area, with higher levels among New Travellers and Irish Travellers than among Romany Gypsies. 50% of respondents said that they had experienced harassment or discrimination, with a higher level of incidents on long-term, transient and unauthorised sites than on local authority sites or in bricks-and-mortar housing, and lower levels on private sites.


Page 20

Harassment included name-calling and graffiti, bullying in schools, being refused services or work and being followed around in shops. Many respondents saw such treatment as ‘normal’, but particularly resented prejudice fanned by misinformation and the failure of settled communities to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Gypsies and Travellers, and always to expect the worst from them. Comments included: “Some people discriminate - they look at us as if the dog’s done something on their shoe”. “... people need to realise being a Traveller is not a criminal act”. “Travellers are not second-class citizens”. There was little evidence of any formal action to challenge or complain about harassment or discrimination. One reason for not taking things further was summed up as; ”the people that you are able to complain to are the very people that discriminate or harass you”. c)

Report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Sir William Macpherson of Cluny (1999) [Download here] It can be argued that this hugely influential report marked the start of the wider understanding of hate crime in the UK. Stephen Lawrence was a young Black British man from south east London, who was murdered in a racially-motivated attack while waiting for a bus on the evening of 22 April 1993. The case became the highest-profile racial murder in UK history, and led to profound changes in public and institutional culture, attitudes about the police and racism, and the law. After the initial Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) investigation, five suspects were arrested but not convicted. It was suggested during the course of the investigation that the murder was racially motivated - that Lawrence was killed because he was black - and that the handling of the case by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service was affected by racism. On 31st July 1997, the Home Secretary ordered Sir William Macpherson to conduct a public inquiry into the handling of the case. The Inquiry found that there had been a failure of leadership by senior MPS officers, and that recommendations of the major 1981 Scarman Report, published on November 25th 1981 following race riots in Brixton (London) 7 had been ignored. It also found that the MPS was “institutionally racist”. The report recommended a series of major measures to subject the police to greater public control, enshrine rights for victims of crime and extend the number of offences classified as racist. Freedom of information and race relations legislation were extended to apply to the police.

7

A copy of the Scarman Report is available FOR LOAN ONLY from FRESh – [email protected] Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 21

Racism in Shropshire We have included reference to four reports about racism in Shropshire since 1995 – and summaries of three - because they provide an overview of the continuing problems created by rural racism, and the ongoing issues of isolation and widespread lack of effective local support for people from black and Asian origins living and working in the county. d)

Graffiti on the gates of the Dana exprison, Shrewsbury: November 2015

Study into the needs of BAME people living and working in Shropshire (Centre for Voluntary Action Research: August 2005) [Download here] The study suggested that; “... victims of racial harassment and racially aggravated crime were reluctant to seek help and draw attention to themselves”, and that; “... many instances of racial harassment went unreported. Feedback from the police on progress in relation to reported incidents of racial harassment was identified as a problem because it made those coming forward feel more insecure…” The study also identified that Gypsies and Travellers generally did not report harassment, and it made reference to a study examining multicultural citizenship and policy-making in the English countryside, 8 which found that the problem of racism and assault on people from BAME backgrounds was as relevant in Shropshire as in the deprived inner-city suburbs with which racism was more closely associated.

e)

Review Of Race Infrastructure in Telford & Wrekin and Shropshire: Building Capacity to Make a Difference (Sushel Ohri Associates; 2004) [Download here] This review was commissioned by the then Shropshire County Council to inform the development of its policy on equality and diversity in light of the closure of Telford and Shropshire Race Equality Council. Among its findings was that “....Shrewsbury and surrounding areas have long experienced racist attitudes, with some very active anti-migrant political activity”. It referred to research evidence from other rural areas suggesting that BAME residents in rural areas are more than twice as likely to encounter racist abuse as those than in urban areas.

8

Rural landscapes, Representations and Racism: examining multicultural citizenship and policy-making in the English countryside (Neal, S, Ethnic and Racial Studies 25: 442-461, 2002)


Page 22

f)

No Problem?; Race issues in Shropshire (Nizhar P, Telford & Shropshire Race Equality Forum, 1995) [Download here] This Shropshire study was the third CRE 9-funded research study into rural racism in the UK, and like the earlier studies (‘Keep Them in Birmingham; Challenging racism in south west England’ [Download here] and ‘Not in Norfolk’ [not available to download], it revealed a worrying picture of official and institutional complacency, set against a background of discrimination, prejudice, harassment and violence. ’No Problem’ exposed the frequency, nature and ferocity of racist incidents in Shropshire. Discrimination was highlighted in various services, especially in education, health, employment and the police. Incidents ranging from derogatory and offensive language to physical racist attacks were identified, and subtler forms of racism were highlighted, including mockery of people’s culture and background. All of the young participants had come across verbal or physical racial harassment within the previous three years. The majority believed racism to be increasing in Shropshire, and pinpointed areas where racist attitudes were prevalent. Shrewsbury was named by most of the young people as a 'no go' area, and they were able to illustrate this through examples of harassment. Perpetrators were white in 73% of incidents cited by respondents. The report cited 55 cases of verbal abuse, and 12 respondents stated they had suffered both verbal and physical abuse. Harassment in the workplace was mentioned by 22 respondents. 28 respondents had taken no action over racial harassment or discrimination. 23 had retaliated, 18 had made complaints and 17 had chosen to ignore the incidents. Other action had included avoiding the area in which the incident occurred, termination of employment, challenging the perpetrators, contacting the police and contacting the Race Equality Forum for Telford and Shropshire.

6.8. Religion or belief a) Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime: UK case studies 2010 (Robert Lambert and Jonathan Githens-Mazer: University of Exeter 2010) [Download here] This research examined the nature and scale of anti-Muslim hate crimes in London, but has lessons for the UK as a whole. The authors suggest that Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime threaten to undermine basic human rights, fundamental aspects of citizenship and existing partnerships for Muslims and non-Muslims alike in contemporary Europe.

9

Commission for Racial Equality – one of the predecessor Commissions to the Equality and Human Rights Commission Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 23

Routine portrayals of Islam as a religion of hatred, violence and inherent intolerance - in particular in certain sections of the media - have fuelled the emergence of extremist nationalist, anti-immigration politics in Europe, such that politicians from Austria to Britain, the Netherlands and Spain now feel comfortable in using terms like “tsunamis of Muslim immigration”, and accuse Islam of being a fundamental threat to a “European way of life”. b)

We Fear for Our Lives: Offline and Online Experiences of Anti-Muslim Hostility (Imran Awan and Irene Zempi; Birmingham City University, Nottingham Trent University, TellMAMA – October 2015) [Download here ] The overall aim of this collaborative UK report is to examine the impacts of online and offline anti-Muslim hate crime. The authors conducted 20 in-depth interviews with Muslim men and women who have been victims of both online and offline anti-Muslim hate. This is the first report to examine the nature and impacts of both online and offline anti-Muslim hate crime. The principal findings were: Both online and offline incidents are a continuity of anti-Muslim hate and should not be examined in isolation. Participants described living in fear because of the possibility of online threats materialising in the ‘real world’ The prevalence and severity of online and offline antiMuslim hate crimes are influenced by trigger events of local, national and international significance The visibility of people’s Muslim identity is key to triggering both online and offline anti-Muslim hate crime Muslim women are more likely to be attacked than Muslim men, both in the virtual and physical worlds Victims of both online and offline anti-Muslim crime suffer from depression, emotional stress, anxiety and fear. The victims of online anti-Muslim hate crime remain less ‘visible’ in the criminal justice system Muslim men are unlikely to report an incident of anti-Muslim abuse for fear of being viewed as ‘weak’.

6.9. Sex and sexism 10 There appears to be little easily accessible recent academic or other research into the subject of sexism and hate crime. Four examples are cited below, two from the UK and two from the USA. Apart from ‘Gendered Hostility’ none is recent. a) Gendered hostility: Victims’ perspectives (Leicester Hate Crime Project; 2014) [Download here] See also 6.11. Transgender and transphobia (below) This UK paper – part of the Leicester Hate Crime Project – reports on surveys and interviews completed with 204 people who had been targeted because of hostility towards their gender, and with 24 people who had been targeted because of hostility towards their transgender status.

10

Throughout this report, sexism is defined as discrimination against women and girls based on prejudice about their sex Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 24

The authors heard from many people who felt that they had been victimised not simply because of their gender, but because they had not been performing their gender role ‘properly’ in the eyes of the person targeting them. Society has certain dominant ideas and expectations regarding how men and women conduct themselves, based on fairly rigid and ‘traditional’ ideas of masculinity and femininity. Those who do not conform to these expectations can find themselves the targets of hostility, and researchers heard from a number of people who had been verbally abused, sent hate mail and offensive messages on social networks, and even sexually assaulted because they had not performed the role of a woman, a wife or a mother ‘correctly’. b)

Should violence against women in the UK be seen as hate crime? (Julia Long, 50:50 democracy: 30th November 2010) [Download here] The paper begins with a description of the notorious 2008 misogynistic 11 murder of Marsha McDonnell and Amelie Delagrange, and the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy by Levi Bellfield, who had a reputation for sexually harassing under-age girls. If this hate-motivated violence had been based on another identity, it would probably have been recognised as a hate crime. However, UK legislation, does not recognise women as a hate crime identity category. Most acts of violence against women are carried out by men known to them, and this paper explores the linked patriarchal power, gender inequality and misogyny at the heart of most violence against women, within the broader context of women’s inequality and a culture which normalises, trivialises or glamorises violence against women. Mainstream culture generally continues to see violence against women as a personal, individual issue. The Home Office recognises hate crime as more serious than other crime because: It targets people because of their identity, and is a form of discrimination that infringes their human rights and prevents them from enjoying the full benefits of our society Research has shown that hate crimes cause greater psychological harm than similar crimes without a motivation of prejudice Hate crime creates fear in victims, groups and communities, and encourages communities to turn on each other. Replacing “hate crime” with ‘”violence against women” in the above bullet points demonstrates that the Home Office description of hate crime fits well with many crimes of violence against women. What is needed is to recognise that power and control are key motivations for violence against women and girls, and that individual acts of violence are supported by widespread structural inequality and misogyny.

11

Throughout this report ‘misogyny’ is defined as fear or hatred of women and girls Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 25

c)

Gender-Bias 12 Hate Crimes: A Review - Abstract (Beverley A. McPhail University of Texas at Austin USA: 2005) [Access Sage Publications here – N.B. this is a subscription site] The article abstract highlights that at the time of the review hate crimes and hate crime policy were receiving increased public and academic attention, much of which had been focused on crimes committed because of bias toward a victim's membership of a group based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or national origin. However more recently gender had been included as a status category, often causing heated debate. The article looked at the history of the initial exclusion and then inclusion of gender as a hate crime motivator. It explores the reasons for the ‘uneasy fit’ of gender as a hate crime indicator, and arguments for and against its inclusion. The article concludes with implications for research, policy, and practice.

d)

Hate Crimes Against Women (The Leadership Conference [USA] (Undated) [Download here] The number and rate of increase or decrease of hate crimes committed against women in the USA is unknown, because the Hate Crime Statistics Act 13 was implemented without including hate crimes against women as a class. Other federal laws and many state hate crime statutes also exclude bias crimes targeting women. In recent years, many women's advocates have spoken out about the high numbers of violent physical and sexual assaults against women. Although the most common forms of violence against women are traditionally viewed as "personal attacks," or even as the victim's own fault, there is growing recognition that many assaults against women are not random acts of violence but are actually bias-related crimes.

6.10. Sexual orientation, homophobia and biphobia14 a)

Homophobic Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents (Stonewall and YouGov, 2013) [Download here] This UK report presents a bleak picture of homophobic hate crimes and incidents, highlighting that: One in six lesbian, gay and bisexual people had experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident over the three years prior to the research Almost one in ten lesbian, gay and bisexual people had experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident in the year before the report One in sixteen regards homophobic harassment or attacks as a big problem in their area.

12 13

14

Bias crimes in the USA have the same meaning as hate crimes in the UK. This Act of the USA Congress requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed because of the victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or ethnicity. Bisexuals experience biphobia from the lesbian and gay communities as well as from heterosexuals. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 26

The report records detailed statistics about respondents’ experiences of: Crime (homophobic hate crimes or incidents and also general crimes) Insults, intimidation and harassment Vandalism, including damage to their own homes, property or vehicles Threats of violence or force Being repeat victims. Lesbian, gay and bisexual people living in urban areas were more likely to have been the victim of a crime or incident in the previous three years than those living in rural areas (50% compared to 33%), which reflects general population trends of greater crime in urban areas. Many of those crimes and incidents were homophobic in nature, with homophobic incidents more common among young people. In the previous twelve months, 9% of lesbian, gay and bisexual people experienced a hate crime or incident. This includes 14% of gay men and 11% of lesbians, with rates dropping to 6% for bisexual men and 4% for bisexual women. The differences between those who identify as gay or lesbian and those who identify as bisexual may be due in part to many bisexual people’s sexual orientation being less easily identified. b)

Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Research Project: July 2012 – January 2013 [Download here] This research sought the views of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) and of heterosexual people living and/or working in Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin on whether the services they had used within the two areas were sensitive and appropriate to the needs of LGB people. There were 98 lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents, 87 heterosexual respondents and 16 who chose not to define their sexual orientation. A majority of both LGB and heterosexual respondents thought that LGB people face a greater risk of crime than heterosexual people; 74% in the case of LGB respondents. 32% of the 76 LGB people who responded to questions about their experience of hate incidents said they had experienced homophobic bullying or harassment and 45% said they had experienced homophobic verbal abuse in the previous two years. The very low level of reporting for homophobic crime and incidents is also of concern, with some 63% of bullying and harassment cases and 77% of verbal abuse not reported. The most common reason given for not reporting was a high level of mistrust of enforcement and criminal justice agencies, followed by fear of the personal consequences of reporting and the need to protect personal feelings.


Page 27

c)

Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality: Moving Forward - Government Equalities Office (March 2011) [Download here] In a section on hate crime, this UK report notes that 20% of gay or lesbian people have experienced a homophobic hate crime or incident in the previous three years, but that 70% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people do not report hate crimes or incidents to anyone.

6.11. Transgender and transphobia a) Gendered hostility: Victims’ perspectives (Leicester Hate Crime Project; 2014) [Download here] This paper covers experiences of both sexist and transphobic hate incidents. (See Sex and sexism - 6.9 (a) above) b)

Engendered Penalties: transsexual people’s experiences of inequality and discrimination (Stephen Whittle, Lewis Turner and Maryam Al-Alami: Manchester Metropolitan University/ Press for Change 2007) [Download here] This mixed quantitative and qualitative research was commissioned by the Equalities Review, and when it was produced was the largest data collection ever analysed and the largest survey response ever received when doing research on trans people’s lives. This UK research was based on: A qualitative review of 86,000 emails to Press for Change and 16,000 online postings to the Female to Male UK email list A quantitative analysis of responses to an online survey from 872 selfidentified trans people. The research covered issues including access to and services from housing, health, leisure, commerce, retail, and others. Key findings about harassment in public spaces included: 73% of respondents experienced harassment, with 10% being victims of threatening behaviour when out in public spaces General confidence in the police among members of the trans community was quite high. However, 18.5% of those who actually had interactions with the police felt they were not treated appropriately There was little difference (7% or less) between the experiences of harassment of trans men and trans women in public spaces Trans people fear for their safety. 50% of trans people who only present in their preferred gender socially, do not go to public spaces in that gender role. They will go out, but only to a safe private venue such as someone else’s home.

b)

Transphobic Hate Crime in the European Union (Sponsored by ILGAEurope and Press for Change: May 2009) [Download here] Although written almost eight years ago, this report still provides useful insights into transphobic hate incidents. It was based on anonymous self-reporting by a total of 2,669 respondents, used an online survey available in thirteen languages, and covered all aspects of trans people’s lives.


Page 28

Relevant findings were: 79% of respondents had experienced some form of harassment in public Trans people are three times more likely to experience a transphobic hate incident or crime than lesbians and gay men are a to experience a homophobic hate incident or crime The most common forms of reported harassment were unsolicited comments and verbal abuse. 15% of respondents had experienced threatening behaviour and 7% physical abuse. d)

Trans research review (Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 27: NatCen Autumn, 2009) [Download here] This research was commissioned to establish a clear picture of quantitative, qualitative and policy evidence on equality and discrimination in relation to trans people, to provide a baseline to inform future policy development and strategy in Britain. The review identified that there were very few publiclyfunded research studies to draw upon, but it began to map the range and type of issues that trans people face, and to point towards possible future research and policy development. Two sections of the report have particular relevance to transphobic hate crime: Attitudes towards trans people Trans people are badly affected by many forms of transphobia, including bullying and discriminatory treatment in schools, harassment and physical and sexual assault, rejection from families, work colleagues and friends. It appears that large sections of the British population hold negative and discriminatory views towards trans people, although there is also evidence of positive change. Hate crime and the criminal justice system Trans people experience high levels of hate incidents and crime. Morton (2008) 15 found that 62% of respondents had experienced transphobic harassment from strangers in public places: mostly this had taken the form of verbal abuse, but 40% had experienced transphobic threatening behaviour, 17% had been physically assaulted and 4% had been sexually assaulted.

15

Morton, J. (2008), Transgender Experiences in Scotland: Research Summary, Scottish Transgender Alliance. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 29

7.

Agency workshop 7.1. As part of FRESh’s research, a workshop was held on 28th May 2015 with participants from a number of Shropshire groups and agencies sharing an engagement with hate incidents and crime. Participants explored the far-reaching impact of hate incidents, extending far beyond the health and wellbeing of individuals: Single incidents can be frightening and shocking, impacting on people’s self-confidence and feelings of safety. Some hate crime is longer-term, regular and systematic, and can have very serious consequences for people’s mental health, and for community relations and cohesion. Children and young people may grow up in an environment where such behaviour is at best tolerated and at worst seen as normal and acceptable. Becoming desensitised or immune to hate is a danger that shouldn’t be underestimated. 7.2. Workshop participants talked about what discourages victims and witnesses from reporting hate incidents in Shropshire. They felt that factors influencing underreporting include: Whether the offender is known to the victim, whether incidents are isolated or ongoing, their severity, and the availability of evidence Lack of public awareness that there is such a thing as hate crime, and that it is both unacceptable and illegal Lack of knowledge that hate incidents and crimes can be reported and what will happen if they are Lack of public knowledge of Hate Crime Reporting Centres Mistrust of public agencies and their likely response to reports of hate incidents and crimes Fear of possible personal consequences of reporting, and the need to protect personal feelings. Two additional issues for victims were highlighted: Negative past experiences are a particular issue for older gay men, who not too long ago could have been arrested by police because of who they are. Police still have to regain trust We need to get across to victims (and the wider public) that incidents may seem small, but when they are repeated again and again they become major and can have major repercussions. 7.3. When we are bystanders we may not challenge hate incidents. Reasons include: Fear of being seen as a ‘grass’ “It’s happened; reporting won’t make a difference; it doesn’t affect me” Inertia We may not see it as a hate incident, or may even think that the victim is ‘asking for it’ Group cultures can facilitate hate crime; no one steps in to stop it “If it doesn’t offend me, why should I challenge it?”… and then (ethical) boundaries start shifting.


Page 30

7.4. Discussion about what would encourage reporting included the need: To clarify what hate crime is, and to increase awareness of it For clear processes and procedures, including information about what will happen as a result of reporting Most importantly, to show that reporting isn’t just about that individual incident or perpetrator; it’s about building a picture of how many incidents, and where and what kind. Then we can do something about it - for instance in housing estates we could highlight ‘hot spots’. The workshop began to identify what needs to happen, and ‘out-of-the-box’ ideas to address the issues. Participants hoped that further in-depth research would lead to the development of a practical strategy and longer-term action plan incorporating these ideas. 7.5. More detail of the feedback from this workshop is given in Appendix A (A1).

8.

Survey analysis and outcomes 8.1. Background As noted in 5.2 above, it was decided in August 2015 to use a simple survey to try and test the validity of the under-reporting figures from the Leicester University Hate Crime Research Project (see 6.2 (b) above) and the Truer Picture of Hate Crime in Warwickshire report (see 6.2 (e) above). The survey (see Appendix B below) Survey flyer – distributed October & November 2015 © FRESh Ltd 2015 asked a series of questions designed to elicit information from people who have experienced hate incidents in Shropshire during the past five years on: What happened What they thought triggered the incident(s) When incidents had happened If not reported, why not If reported; to whom, what happened, what was the outcome and whether they were satisfied. The survey was available online, digitally and in paper form. To encourage people to respond we introduced the survey with a broad definition of hate incidents: “Every year tens of thousands of people in Britain are upset or hurt in some way because of how they are seen by others. It can include physical violence and brutality, as well as harassment such as being spat at, being called names, being threatened, being bullied through social networking sites or text messages and damage to your house or car. These are all called hate incidents and affect all kinds of people from all walks of life. Sometimes incidents might seem trivial at the time, but when repeated they can cause the same enormous damage to victims, their families and friends, and to wider communities as bigger incidents.”


Page 31

8.2. Limitations of survey Because of the very small sample, the survey results are of indicative value only. The survey was widely circulated and publicised via email, digital newsletters, Twitter, radio and flyers at events during National Hate Crime Awareness Week, but in the even weeks it was open only forty one completed surveys were received. In these, twenty two people (54%) said they had not been victims of or witnesses to hate incidents in Shropshire in the last five years. 8.3. Analysis of survey a) Nature and frequency of incidents Respondents were asked what had happened and how often. The reported frequency ranged from one to two hundred incidents, and eight people referred to repeated harassment. The two categories used most often - especially in the range of twenty to two hundred incidents - were ‘verbal abuse’ and ‘text, emails, blogs or other online abuse’. Table 4: Nature and frequency of incidents

What happened Verbal abuse

Incidence (No.) 356 + Numerous + Daily

Physical abuse

25

Offensive graffiti

7

What happened Texts, emails, blogs or other online abuse Damage to property or possessions Repeated harassment

Incidence (No.) 261 + Numerous 32 174 + Numerous

Sixteen people referred to more than one incident, and in eight cases they reported a combination of different kinds of incidents. For example, one person described having their car keyed, as well as being harassed online. In the category ‘other’ one respondent mentioned an offensive answerphone message, and another described being continually mis-gendered by the same person. b)

16

What triggered the incidents? Respondents were asked what they thought had triggered incident(s) (i.e. what they thought the perpetrator(s) had supposed about them). Table 5 below shows that all survey categories were selected except for ‘being younger’. In this small sample none of the triggers stands out. In the category ‘other’ one respondent mentions being repeatedly harassed for being overweight. 16

This response was included in ‘alternative lifestyle or appearance’. Responses from two witnesses were allocated to appropriate trigger categories. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 32

Table 5: What triggered the incidents?

Supposed trigger My age – older person My age – younger person My alternative lifestyle or appearance My learning disability My mental health My physical disability

No. Supposed trigger 1 My race, ethnicity or nationality 0 My religion My sex 3 My sexual orientation 1 My social or economic status - class 3 My transgender status 5

No. 2 3 2 4 2 4

Several respondents selected multiple triggers for the same incident. This might mean either that the trigger for the hate incident was unclear, or that an incident took place because of a combination of triggers. For example a female respondent who has a religious occupation that is supposedly for ‘the other sex’. c)

When and how often did incidents occur? Respondents were asked to record the approximate month when the incident(s) happened. Only fifteen people answered this question, which was enough information to indicate a time of year when most incidents tend to occur. Responses to a question about whether and how often incident(s) were reported were: Eleven had reported one or more incidents Most of these (7) were reported to the police Reports to Shropshire Council, CAB, a college, a Community Health Trust and a company were also mentioned. There were several examples of multiple reports, especially to the police, with the number of reports per respondent ranging from five to forty. In the three cases where people were the victims or witnesses of a single incident, none was reported.

d)

Levels of satisfaction with reporting outcomes Five respondents felt that their cases were taken seriously. Three said that not a lot had happened after reporting, and one felt that they had not been believed. Only two respondents had felt satisfied with the result of reporting. One was a transgender person experiencing multiple incidents of verbal abuse and damage to their property or possessions, who commented; “The police took it very seriously. A case was built and all perpetrators were traced and dealt with.” The other had experienced multiple incidents of verbal abuse because of triggered by their sexual orientation; “The lead at the council … was very proactive and helped arrange a meeting between me and the police. A letter was sent to the offending person warning that their actions were not appropriate, and the offending actions stopped. Without knowing that this support was available, I would have been frightened and intimidated every time I left my home. It was such a relief to have this prompt action sorted so quickly.” Three other people were unsure whether they were satisfied with the result of reporting.


Page 33

Six were not satisfied, of whom five had reported to the police. One respondent commented; “The court case was very traumatic. It took almost twelve months to come to trial. The CPS felt we had a good case but after two days of prosecution witnesses it was thrown out … The judge … felt there was only one incident of criminal harassment and he needed to see a pattern. …. I have been left feeling very let down by the whole system. The judge warned the defendant about his behaviour but refused to put a restraining order on him. I would, however, give some positives; the support from Victim Support, the police and the CPS solicitor has been good, and the people who look after you in the court while you are waiting for the trial to start were fantastic – nothing was too much trouble. Would I do the same again? No. A very traumatic time with a poor outcome – something hanging over me. If he starts again I will be left with no alternative but to move away from a place where all my family and friends are, but I cannot go through it all again!” e)

Reporting hate incidents and crimes Eight respondents who had experienced between one and seven incidents each (42%) said they had not reported what had happened. One had not reported hundreds of incidents because “the) police were part of the problem”. Of the eleven respondents who had reported an incident (53%), five said that they had not reported all incidents, with four describing repeated harassment. This means that thirteen of the nineteen respondents (68%) who had witnessed or been victims of hate incidents had either not reported all or had not reported any of them. Twelve people gave twenty two reasons for not reporting incidents. The most common (7) was: ‘I didn’t think anything would be done’. Table 6: Reasons for not reporting

Reason for not reporting I didn’t think anything would be done I didn’t think I’d be listened to or believed I was worried about revenge action by the person(s) who did it I didn’t think it was important

No. Reason for not reporting I didn’t trust the reporting 7 organisation I didn’t want to be seen as a 3 tale-teller or ‘snitch’ 3

I didn’t know where or how to report it

3 I didn’t know I could report it

No. 2 2 1 1

Six respondents gave an unlisted reason: Two said they didn’t think of it (“over the years it becomes part of the territory”) One said the perpetrator was part of their family One said the police was part of their problem One said the police told them there was nothing they could do, so the victim felt it was pointless to report any more incidents One said: “I didn't have a name for the victim or for the person doing it. I wasn't even sure the victim had heard what was going on. I felt that if I reported it they wouldn't be able to do anything about it and they might question why I reported it (wasting someone's time).”


Page 34

9.

Feedback from FRESh Equality Forum workshops held on 3rd December 2015 9.1. Background The FRESh Equality Forum meeting held on 3rd December 2015 focused on presenting and discussing the draft Hate Crime Scoping report. Regular Forum members and members of the Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group were invited. Members of FRESh facilitated two workshops, on themes which had emerged during the research as needing further inputs; hate crimes triggered by sexism, and hate crimes triggered by alternative appearance. The discussions are summarised below, and fuller reports are included as Appendix E. 9.2. Workshop on sexism and hate crime This workshop explored several themes, including: a) There is a close fit between the Home Office definition of a hate crime and the impact on women of incidents and crimes motivated by sexism. Violence against women was widely discussed. It is so much a part of everyday life that it is almost normalised in our society (see also Everyday Sexism Project) [Go to website]. It manifests in many different ways, and is often ongoing and done to women by men they know. Violence against women tends to be individualised, and women are often blamed by others and themselves for being at least partly responsible for attacks on them – how they dress, where they go, how much they drink. This takes away women’s autonomy and freedom. It might be useful to see violence against women as a type of hate crime. This could help raise general awareness of the impact of stereotypes, prejudice and power on women, and might also help challenge the idea that women are in some way responsible for being sexually assaulted. However, there are various arguments against this suggestion which need further exploration. b)

There was debate over the use of the word ‘hate’. It can be seen as very emotive, and the workshop felt that many would not identify with it in this context. Does crime against women have to have a single label? Can it be seen both as hate crime and as other criminal acts? If violence against women is motivated by a reaction to women’s appearance or behaviour based on sexist assumptions, is that a hate crime? Sexist behaviour may be based on prejudice about how women should behave, rather than on hatred.

c)

There is an element of power in all incidents directed against women. All public and private space has power dynamics. Men who feel they have the right to comment on and behave disrespectfully towards women may draw this feeling from their position of power over them. Women are seen as weaker, less capable, “less than….”

d)

Hate incidents say to people; “you don’t belong”. We are all made up of many characteristics, and there is a danger of watering down violence against women and girls by lumping it all under the term “hate crime”.

e)

It could be useful to see violence against women as a type of hate crime – to raise general awareness of the impact of stereotypes, prejudice and power on women. It might help to turn the tables on the idea that women are in some way responsible for being (sexually) assaulted.


Page 35

9.3. Workshop on alternative appearance and hate crime a) Background Most definitions of hate crime within the Criminal Justice sector are based on particular protected (or similar) characteristics being a trigger for an incident or crime. Most of these definitions do not include explicit reference to age or sex, despite both being protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group defines hate crimes and incidents as motivated by : “... hostility and prejudice towards people because they are seen as being different...”, and lists race, disability, sexual orientation, faith, age, gender identity, alternative lifestyles, culture and sex as recognised triggers. b).

Alternative approaches to definition FRESh’s research suggests a strong case for recognising prejudice against several other groups of people as triggers for hate crimes, including: • People who are seen as fat • People with HIV/ Aids • Homeless people • Women • People who are facially disfigured The workshop suggested that the issue is wider than appearance, and includes, for example, autism, Aspergers, learning disabilities and mental health issues; none of which are immediately visible to others. There is a growing movement to change the definition of hate incidents towards one in which the hate-motivation is defined by victims and third parties, along the lines adopted for racist incidents after the Stephen Lawrence Report; ".... any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person". As well as being simple and less bureaucratic, this approach is particularly attractive when considering triggers that may be difficult to define within protected characteristics, such as body size, disfigurement, homelessness and HIV/ Aids status. The possibility of an approach which uses both self-definition and some characteristics was discussed. On reflection this was felt to contain the disadvantages of both models with the benefits of neither.

c)

Other considerations The workshop considered a number of related factors: The use of “hate” in the “hate crime” title is not widely understood, and is offputting for many. This is likely to compound the lack of public awareness of and engagement in hate crime campaigns. Hatred is not the same as discrimination, and “hate crime” fails to distinguish between incidents prompted by ignorance and thoughtlessness and those prompted by malice and an intention to hurt and create distress or fear.


Page 36

There is a need for an effective and sustained campaign on hate crime. The current social, economic and political climate mitigates against positive attitudes on equality, anti-discrimination and positive action, and hate crime initiatives can be dismissed as “political correctness” by mainstream culture and media. There is an urgent need to increase public awareness of what hate incidents are, and their real impact on the lives of individuals and communities.

10. Other evidence 10.1. In 2015 FRESh undertook two separate pieces of research for the NHS in Shropshire, both of which have raised issues relevant to this scoping project. They include: a) Indications that there are still pockets of ignorance and some prejudice in health service provision in Shropshire. This can help reinforce and normalise prejudices in the wider community environment, making hate incidents and crimes seem less problematic. b) The need to ensure that public service employees are given regular face-to-face training on equality, diversity and anti-discriminatory practice. This is important in providing an environment in which victims of hate crimes and incidents can feel safe and supported and have their feelings and rights affirmed. c) There was an emphasis on the importance of joined-up services, reinforcing the findings of the desktop research and the agency workshop. d) Participants also emphasised the importance of sensitive and receptive support services in dealing with stressful incidents and diagnoses. 10.2. At the time of writing, a prominent example of community impacts can be seen in the aftermath of the 2016 New Year’s Eve harassment and attacks on women in Cologne, with many women expressing fear and anxiety about using public spaces, violent attacks within and beyond Germany on men perceived as being immigrants or of Pakistani, Syrian and African origins, and serious concerns about wider community relations and cohesion.

11. Conclusions 11.1. Understanding hate incidents and crimes a) Definition of hate incidents and crimes The absence of an agreed overall definition of hate incidents and crimes means there is scope for widening the definition to include: People who may not have made a choice about how they live or their appearance, but whose lives nevertheless fall outside what are seen as mainstream culture and norms; for example people who are homeless, and people who are seen as fat Relevant domestic abuse People living with HIV/AIDS Sexism and hate or prejudice against girls and women. If hatred or fear of someone’s characteristics is part of the reason they are abused, targeted, harassed or belittled, then those incidents are essentially hate incidents.


Page 37

b)

The impact of hate incidents and crimes The impact of hate incidents is far-reaching, extending far beyond the health and wellbeing of individuals. Single incidents can be frightening, shocking and can impact on people’s self-confidence and feelings of safety. Even a single incident can send out a negative message to a community that shares a particular characteristic. Some hate crime is longer-term, frequent and systematic and can have very serious consequences for people’s mental health, for community relations and cohesion. Children and young people may grow up in an environment in which such behaviour is tolerated or, at worst, seen as normal and acceptable. Becoming desensitised or immune to hate is a danger that should not be underestimated. Hate crime has a serious and cumulative impact on different communities of geography, identity and interest, by generating and increasing tensions and suspicion between different groups. This can include: Feeding prejudices The effect of some graffiti in making public spaces threatening Increased reluctance by some groups to use public spaces. Examples include trans people, women or disabled people who choose not to visit areas in which there have been sexist and disablist incidents – especially after dark. It is also worth highlighting the increasing incidence and impact on people’s lives of cyber bullying and hate incidents in social media. The great majority of this is unlikely to be reported, neither to the social media providers nor through hate crime reporting processes.

c)

Why some hate incidents go unchallenged in Shropshire Bystanders may not challenge or report hate crime for several reasons, including: An incident is seen as trivial, and Thinking the victim is ‘asking for it’ not worth reporting Group culture: no one steps in to The feeling that reporting won’t stop it make a difference The idea that ‘if it doesn’t offend me, why should I challenge it?’… A fear of being seen as a ‘grass’ Inertia and then ethical boundaries start shifting

11.2. Underreporting of hate incidents and crimes in Shropshire a) Underreporting levels The survey response shows that 68% of the respondents who had witnessed or had been a victim of a hate incident had not reported (all of) it. Although it was a very small sample, it does support the percentages from the desk review. We are now confident in saying that the percentage of underreporting of hate incidents in Shropshire is likely to be within the range of 50% to 70%; moving towards 70%. This means that if the numbers of hate incidents reported to West Mercia Police from 2012 – 15 are increased by 70% to allow for incidents that are likely to have been reported, the following picture emerges:


Page 38

2012 2013 2014 2015

110 107 108 103

367 357 360 343

24 27 21 39

80 90 70 130

12 18 24 19

40 60 80 63

146 152 153 161

Projected

Police figures

Projected

Police figures

Projected

Police figures

Projected

Police figures

Table 7: Projections based on Warwickshire and West Mercia Police figures Shropshire annual hate incidents – 2012 to 2015 17 Race Homophobia Disablism Total

487 507 510 536

This is a rather crude calculation, but it is the best estimate we can make of the true picture of hate incidents in Shropshire at present. Since we do not have access to reported figures for the other triggers, we are unable to extend our estimate for the full range of definitional categories. b)

Factors influencing underreporting in Shropshire Factors include: Whether the offender and victim know each other Whether incidents are isolated or ongoing Their severity or triviality The availability of tangible evidence Lack of public awareness that there is such a thing as hate crime, what it is and that it is both unacceptable and illegal Lack of knowledge that hate incidents and crimes can be reported and of what would happen if they are Lack of public knowledge of community reporting centres Mistrust of public agencies and their likely response to reports of hate incidents and crimes Fear of possible personal consequences of reporting, and the need to protect personal feelings Negative past experiences are a particular issue for older gay men who not too long ago would have been arrested by police because of who they are. Police have still to regain the trust of many.

c)

Hidden hate incident and crime figures It appears that some hate incidents are reported, but not recorded as such. They can be hidden in figures on recorded domestic abuse, discrimination and anti-social behaviour. In addition it is unclear whether incidents reported to national reporting centres are counted in the officially reported police figures for Shropshire. A similar ambiguity occurs with incidents on social media, that are likely to be reported to Twitter or Facebook rather than to the police or a reporting centre, although some are included in the police figures.

17

The statistics on which table 7 is based are supplied to FRESh by Warwickshire and West Mercia Police, and do not include figures for religious discrimination and transphobia. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 39

All of us are made up of multiple characteristics 18, but this is rarely addressed in hate incident figures or reports. This means that the trigger for a particular incident might not be easily or accurately identified, and that an incident recorded under one characteristic might actually be triggered by another - or by more than one. We believe that an incident with such multiple triggers is included several times in the tables containing figures from the police. 11.3. Other observations a) There is a lack of information about which third party (community) reporting centres are still operating; who is the contact person for each centre and when staff or volunteers at the centres have last been trained. b)

Our own and others’ research experience suggests that it is often difficult to engage people who have been subjected to hate incidents and crimes in research. However, given the valuable data that survey participants shared with us, we believe an online survey can enable a significant response, as long as it is well-planned, well-publicised, targeted through known networks, conducted over a reasonably long period of time and support is offered to potential participants to complete the survey and share any concerns it may raise.

12. Recommendations 12.1. Context The following recommendations are derived from the data and conclusions in this report. The first section (12.2.) contains general recommendations on the structural work we consider is needed in Shropshire. Sections 12.3. to 12.7. contain more detailed recommendations on hate incidents and crime policy and practice in the county. The third and final section (12.8.) sets out our recommendations and estimated costings for further research. 12.2. Structural work to be done in Shropshire a) Work is needed to enable the agreement and adoption of a single consistent, clear and simple definition of hate crime and incidents across Shropshire b) Hate incident reporting, recording and management systems and processes should be more joined-up, both within and between organisations c) Understanding and awareness within organisations of the underlying trigger issues such as disablism, racism, homophobia, etc, needs to be improved d) Continuing research is needed into how much and where hate crime is happening e) Work is needed with and within Shropshire’s Deaf community and reporting centres and agencies to enable hate incident reporting in BSL f) Further research is needed on how to support victims of hate incidents on social media

18

Sometimes called ‘intersectionality’. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 40

12.3. Recording and reporting a) The reporting process should be clarified for agencies, victims and witnesses b) The Shropshire hate incident reporting form should be amended to show: To emphasise that hat reporting is important even if the names of the victims or perpetrators are unknown To include reports by third parties who are not victims or witnesses c) Reporting and recording processes should distinguish between hate incidents triggered by homophobia and biphobia and those triggered by transphobia d) Regular reports are needed on incidents triggered by religion or belief and alternative lifestyle or appearance e) Hate incident figures should be reported every month, enabling trends and variations to be analysed regardless of the calendar used by different organisations (for example academic, calendar or financial years) f) Figures should be reported using consistent trigger categories. 12.4.

Local reporting centres a) The location of local reporting centres should not just be based on geography but also on their accessibility for groups with particular trigger characteristics b) There is a need to carry out a review of the work and location of third party reporting centres, to include: The number of reports they have received during the past five years Their location in relation to known hate incidents When relevant staff and volunteers were last trained How the reporting procedure interacts with their internal procedures and policies Their representation at meetings of Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group c) There should be clear guidance on what it means to be a reporting centre, and on the requirements for organisational commitment, staffing, training and reporting processes d)

A systematic and sustainable training and support plan for local reporting centres should be developed and put in place. This training plan should be linked with the provision of hate incident and crime training, supervision and support for Shropshire Council Community Enablement Officers, West Mercia Police Community Support Officers and other workers with a community and/or criminal justice remit in their work.

12.5.

Education, prevention and campaigning 12.5.1 Messages that need be put across to the wider public: a) What hate incidents are, so they can be recognised b) Hate incidents are unacceptable. This needs to be a sustained message, encouraging a cultural shift similar to that created by the campaign on drink driving c) No incident is trivial; even where one may seem small or trivial, when repeated again and again it becomes major and has major repercussions.


Page 41

d)

e) f) g)

Reporting is not just about an individual incident or perpetrator. It is important to build up a picture of how many incidents, where they happen and what kind they are, so that something can be done about hate incidents and crimes. It is important that incidents are reported, even when the names of victims or perpetrators are unknown Incidents can be reported anonymously Where victims can go to be safe (Safe Places 19) and where victims and witnesses can go to report What happens as a result of reporting.

12.5.2 Wider education, prevention and campaigning measures a) Knowledge needs to be developed on how best to support and work with victims and potential victims on prevention strategies, especially with those who are among the most vulnerable b) Workshops are needed on prevention and how to handle evidence (including social media incidents) with people who are likely to be hate incident victims and their carers. These should include adults with learning disabilities and people with mental health issues c) Information should be systematically gathered and collated about the impact of hate crimes and incidents on individuals and groups and their direct and indirect impact on services and wider communities, to demonstrate the social and economic value of prevention d) There is also a need to feed this information into campaigning and training e) As part of prevention and awareness-raising work, victims should be supported to talk with students in schools, colleges and universities about their experiences and the consequences of hate incident and crimes. f) Emphasis is needed on building knowledge about perpetrators, to help inform prevention work. 12.6.

19

Integration with national and international events Hate incident and crime awareness-raising needs to be integrated into national events such as National Hate Crime Awareness Week, Kick It Out Campaign, Black History Month, International Human Rights Day, Trans Remembrance Day, International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia & Biphobia, LGBT History Month, International Women’s Day, Holocaust Memorial Day and so on, in order to focus organisational, public and media attention and raise awareness about hate incident and crime issues.

Safe Places are places in the community to which people who have experienced violence or abuse can go for immediate safety and help. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 42

12.7.

Support for local groups and networks There is a need to resource work with existing and potential local groups and networks that provide support to people who are at risk of hate incidents, in order to encourage and support: Awareness of hate incidents and crimes Reporting of hate incidents and crimes. Examples might include groups which work with women, people from BAME, transgender people and other groups without local support networks.

12.8.

Recommendations for further research and parallel action 12.9.1 This research has confirmed that it is very difficult in Shropshire to obtain statistically reliable samples of respondents to engage with research on hate incidents, although it has also strongly suggested that an online survey can be effective if it is run for a substantial time and is backed up by active prompting and publicity. In this research it became very clear that as soon as people in Shropshire are engaged in talking about hate incidents, their interest and involvement ignites. The research has also emphasised the importance of focusing not only on statistics, but on finding ways to improve recording, reporting, prevention and support, and to hear people’s own stories. 12.9.2 We therefore recommend the following combination of approaches: a) A series of community workshops to engage agencies and the general public in exploring: the use of ‘hate’ as a description, and the wider definition of hate incidents,. These workshops should be backed up with an intensive media campaign, and training for agencies and facilitators. People who participated should be asked to complete an online survey (which would be based on the one developed for this project – see Appendix B). This would yield more data on underreporting of hate incidents in Shropshire. b)

The development and facilitation of workshops on prevention and how to handle evidence (including social media incidents) with people who are likely to be hate incident victims and their carers.

c)

Part of the engagement process should be the quiz (Appendix D) that was developed as part of this research and twice successfully piloted

d)

An approach which emerged from the Agency workshop would be to enact hate incident scenarios in public spaces (for example on Pride Hill and at the Cultural Diversity Day in Shrewsbury) and then talk with people about them. This could be based on a participative performance, in which people watching could intervene with a challenge or suggestion and the performance would then change to show how their contribution might play out. This approach to community-based action research enables information to be disseminated, people to engage in training, and


Page 43

public awareness to be raised, at the same time as enabling a more reliable estimate of hate incident underreporting to be calculated. e)

Some of the questions to be included in further research would include: Is it viable and desirable to include some instances of domestic abuse within the Shropshire definition of hate incidents? Is it viable and desirable to include hatred of girls and women within the Shropshire definition of hate incidents? Is it viable and desirable to include homelessness, being seen as fat, and living with HIV/AIDS as grounds for hate incidents in the Shropshire definition? What would make people in Shropshire more aware of hate incidents? What would make people in Shropshire more likely to report them?


Page 44

13.

Indicative costings for further research These costings are provisional, and therefore subject to variation in line with the content and structure of final projects. Although the different elements have been costed separately, the costings are based on the development and delivery of a complete integrated action research programme to be run over a two year period. 13.1. Workshop programme Work involved Workshops on definition Plan, recruit for, facilitate and analyse initial community focus group to explore workshop content and structure Develop workshop programme Publicity and recruitment for workshop participants Facilitate and record six workshops Workshops on prevention Explore interest among agencies and groups Hold initial meeting to explore and agree key themes and issues Agree FRESh-facilitated and agency-facilitated workshop programme Develop workshop outline, programme and facilitation plan Develop and run workshop facilitator training for agencies and groups Run one FRESh-facilitated agency workshop and two community workshops 20 Collate and record workshop outcomes Management fee (12½%) Contingency (10%)

20

Estimated cost £p 800.00 250.00 240.00 2,340.00

3,630.00

120.00 240.00 120.00 240.00 720.00 1,080.00 210.00 Sub total

2,730.00 6,360.00

795.00 640.00 Sub total

7,155.00 7,795.00 7,795.00

This assumes other workshops will be run by facilitators from other agencies, for which costings are not included Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Totals

Page 45

13.2. Online survey and hate incident quiz: for use at workshops, meetings. networks, community groups, etc Work involved Review, pilot revise and distribute online survey Collate and analyse responses (based on 60 responses over the project) Review and disseminate hate incident quiz

Estimated cost £p 600.00 600.00 Sub total 300.00 Sub total

Totals

1,200.00 1,500.00

13.3. Campaigning - two year project Work involved Consultation on key themes and messages Drafting and consulting on campaign strategy and plan Social media campaign Design and printing costs Management fee (12½%) Contingency (10%)

Estimated cost £p 420.00 1,700.00 1,850.00 1,100.00 635.00 510.00 Sub total

Totals

5,070.00 5.705.00 6,215.00 6,215.00

13.4. Develop and run street theatre performances across Shropshire 21 Work involved Develop and consult on project framework Consult on and agree performance locations and numbers: produce programme (initial projection: six performances in different locations) Recruit and induct project co-ordinator/ director Develop scenarios and scripts (meetings and consultations) Co-ordinator/ director fees (125 hours over seven weeks) Management fee (12½% of work on framework, consultation, scenarios and scripts) Contingency (10%)

21

Estimated cost £p 420.00 300.00 600.00 450.00 5,000.00 150.00 670.00 Sub total

These costings assume that the performers will be volunteers. If this is not possible, the costs will increase significantly Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Totals

Page 46

6,670.00 6,820.00 7,490.00

13.5. Training and support for community reporting centres 22 Work involved Consultation and implementation of Hate Crime Reporting Group’s recommendations on locating community reporting centres Consult on and agree recommendations for a revised network of Shropshire community reporting centres: o Plan, recruit participants and facilitate one consultative workshop for up to sixteen agency and community participants o Circulate draft proposals through networks for comment an amendment o Review and revise proposals

Estimated cost £p

540.00 240.00 Sub total

Review the role and work of community reporting centres, to include surveys and workshops on: Existing centres (survey and discussions) o The number of reports they have received during the past five years o When relevant staff and volunteers were last trained

Totals

780.00

860.00

Proposed centres (workshop and discussion) o How reporting procedures should interact with centres’ internal procedures and policies o Data sharing between reporting centres and agencies Sub total Prepare guidance for community reporting centres (discussion, desk work and workshops), including requirements for: o Organisational commitment o Staffing o Reporting processes o Data sharing o Relationship with Hate Crime Reporting Group.

1,050.00

Sub total

22

860.00

1,050.00

This work will be co-ordinated with the recommendations and input of the Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group, which at the time of writing is carrying out its own review of the work needed to re-energise community reporting centres Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 47

13.5. Training and support for community reporting centres (cont) Work involved Prepare a training and support plan for community reporting centres, and for workers with a community and/or criminal justice remit in their work. o Analyse training and support needs for centres, staff and community / criminal justice workers (discussion and workshops) o Draft training and support plan o Consult, amend draft, and produce agreed final plan

Estimated cost £p

Totals

1,200.00 210.00 450.00 Sub total

1,860.00

730.00 3,600.00 3,600.00 1,620.00 Sub total

9,950.00

Community reporting centres annual training and support programme (first two years) These costs are based on: o Eighteen physical community reporting centres across the county o Initial training for all centres in the first year o Half receiving refresher training in the second year, and thereafter all receiving refresher training every two years (see 13.8. below) o Half receiving a review in the second year, and thereafter all receiving a review every two years (see 13.8. below) One-off costings o Reviewing and revising current training; designing review process o Facilitating eighteen training sessions o Facilitating eighteen reviews o Preparing review reports (three hours per report)

o o

Management fee (12½%) Contingency (10%)


1,240.00 11,190.00 995.00 12,185.00 Sub total 12,185.00

Page 48

13.6. Project expenses Travel costs (including workshops and focus groups) Childcare and dependent care expenses for 18 workshops and focus groups Volunteer expenses Material costs (stationery, printing, etc) Sign language interpreting 23 Venue & equipment hire Refreshments

420.00 750.00 150.00 150.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 450.00 Sub total

4,920.00

13.1 to 13.6. Total project cost

44,655.00

13.7. Total project costs 13.8. Ongoing annual training and support for community reporting centres After the initial two year set-up programme (see 13.5. above), community reporting centres will require a programme of ongoing training, reviews and support to remain effective. The annual cost of this programme is as follows: Estimated cost £p 1,800.00 1,800.00 915.00 Sub total

Work involved Facilitating nine training sessions (including travel and materials) Facilitating nine reviews (including travel and materials) Preparing review reports, reviewing and amending training programme Management fee (12½%) Contingency (10%)

23

560.00 450.00 Total annual cost

We anticipate positive action to ensure the engagement of the Deaf community in at least three of the workshops. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 49

Total

4,515.00 5,075.00 5,525.00

Appendix A: Additional documents and websites A1

Detailed feedback from Agency Workshop discussions and scenarios a) How may hate incidents affect individuals (victims)? • Immediate feelings are: anger, sadness, fright, upset • Longer term they can lead to feelings of isolation, frustration, degradation, humiliation, powerlessness, fear of going out, fear of telling people, anxiety, not being able to be yourself. It destroys trust and self worth, leads to feeling depressed. For some it may lead to using drugs/alcohol, and to self harm, and ultimately suicide. b)

How may hate incidents affect families or family members? • Worry • Relationship breakdown because of for instance destroyed self worth or because of frustration • Hate crime by association, for example because you are friends with someone who is gay • Feelings of guilt because you can’t protect them • Feelings of embarrassment for their family member’s behaviour, if they can’t deal with/cope with it.

c)

How may hate incidents affect all of us? • Divides communities • Feels like living in a place that is not very nice to be in • • The Pastor Niemöller quote sums it up: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.” • Can encourage an intolerant society • Perpetrating sends messages to children • If we do nothing, this gives credence to behaviour, and this can escalate as perpetrators think they have support of majority


Page 50

d)

What may hate incidents do to communities? • Can have a direct effect – for example everyone can see fascist/ swastika graffiti spray painted on shutters • It divides people • People get immune to it • Desensitises; you don’t notice any more ... then it looks as if the community tolerates it – when do we challenge? • As a victim you might feel your identity is not recognised by the community

e)

What may be the effect of hate incidents on agencies? • If graffiti not removed immediately, it could lead to reputational damage • On the other hand it can raise awareness and lead to action • If graffiti is reported to an agency and they report to the police who then don’t do anything, then people don’t report more serious stuff to agencies any more • Possibility of financial impact; for example for cleaning up graffiti or investing in prevention.

f)

What discourages or prevents people from reporting or challenging? • Bad experiences with police in the past. Age plays a role in this, especially for older gay men who grew up in times when homosexual acts were illegal and many were prosecuted for ‘cottaging’, and later when the age of consent was higher than now • A bystander might think that they don’t know what the victim wants. They might feel getting involved could make it worse. • Not knowing where to report • People might feel there is no point in reporting. They were shouted at and now it’s over. What can you do? Nothing..... • Fear of repercussions • As a bystander: “It doesn’t affect me, so why would I report it?” You might feel inertia Fear of repercussions if they intervene/report, perpetrators may turn on them May not see it as hate incident (applies to victims too) Might even think that the victim is ‘asking for it’ • In small towns everyone knows everyone; you don’t want to be ‘the grass’ • What response will you get? Embarrassment to your family or friends - a family member might feel they would be an embarrassment if they challenged on a victim’s behalf; “... it’s just a trivial incident.....” • If incidents happen in public places, people often feel powerless and frustrated. You ask yourself: “is it a crime? Who’s going to take any notice? How do I report it?”


Page 51

g)

Participants worked on a number of scenarios, exploring whether they were hate incidents or crimes, and if so what might encourage people to report them and what might put them off reporting. • Scenario 1 A group organising a gay pride event picks up a social media posting the evening before it is due to start, saying that the event is against the word of god, and calling on believers to burn the floats and the sinners on them.

Response In reality, the organisers didn’t at first feel personally attacked. They were part of a group and felt they might have anticipated something like this. They questioned the importance of the incident, and wondered whether the police or other agencies might dismiss a complaint as far-fetched Facebook is anonymous  but e a s y to s ha re e xp Make links to community centres, for example Friends Ludlow, Craven Arms, Bridgnorth. They have Facebook accounts that could be used to get the word out. Use community newsletters and magazines •

Scenario 2 In the street where you live there is a house in which a group of six Eastern European migrants are living. One morning as you walk past the house on your way to work, you see a swastika sprayed on the front door, with a message saying “the Germans were right about the Poles”. Response Knock on the door. Have to do something – children and the wider community will see - must get it removed

•

Scenario 3 A young Goth man and woman are walking ahead of you in the town centre early one evening, when a group of young men runs out of a side street and they start verbally abusing and threatening them. The two young people are obviously very frightened, and stand still until the young men turn and walk away, laughing and turning to shout insults back at the young Goths. Responses • In a young male group culture there is a strong pressure to collude • “If it doesn’t offend me, why challenge it… ?” • Boundaries move. If you don’t speak up when something ‘trivial’ happens… when will you?


Page 52

h)

What would encourage reporting? • If you were asked what you’d like to happen, for instance mediation • Challenging the behaviour is important • Issues around social media need to be explored • We need to show that reporting isn’t just about getting that individual perpetrator, it’s about building up a picture of how many incidents and where and what kind. Then we can do something about it; for instance in housing estates we could highlight “hotspots” • Need joined up processes • Need a coherent reporting system • Maybe if people had “challenging” training it might open their eyes to what hate incidents are and what the effects are, so they might feel more confident in reporting • If you had a card you could give the victim saying that if they wanted to report it, you’d be a witness. You put your phone number and name on and the victim could think about it. • We need to be clear that you can report things that happen to others.

i)

What FRESh/we could do • Victims could talk to students regarding their experiences and the consequences of hate incidents for their lives • We need to think about how to engage with the ‘silent majority’ to enable them to recognise and report hate incidents. We need a cultural shift, similar to that about drink driving. It used to be seen as OK to drink and drive, and now it is unacceptable. • Do more with the Kick-it-Out campaign. • We need to raise awareness of where you can go to be safe (Safe Places) and to report. • We could do a survey on Pride Hill, to raise awareness and to find out how many people know what hate incidents are and where to report them. That way we could reach people who wouldn’t otherwise be reached. • Similarly we could enact scenarios on Pride Hill or at the Cultural Diversity Day of hate incidents, and then talk with people about them. We could play out a scenario, stop, let participants intervene, and show them how their challenge might play out. • Not everyone understands the words Hate Crime. Should we rename it? • We need to get away from people (bystanders/victims) thinking that these are trivial incidents. They are not - especially when they are ongoing. • In Shropshire there is a protocol for sharing hate incident information between agencies such as housing providers. However, not everyone working for these agencies is aware of it, and it is still hard to exchange information when different agencies have different internal procedures and policies. We need to make this work. • We could do group workshops for adults with learning disabilities and mental health issues • Use the VCSA to get through to voluntary groups • We need to do work in and with the Deaf community in Shropshire • Agencies could raise awareness with and in organisations for instance by saying as an employer or committee it’s not “them”; victims are part of “us”


Page 53

•

An example was given of the organisers of an LGBT event getting hate tweets. They involved others in posting supportive social media comments. There might be no reaction to this kind of response, or it could go viral in either a negative or a positive way.

A2 All Wales Hate Crime Research Project [Go to website] This study focused on the five hate crime protected characteristics recognised by the Home Office: disability; race & ethnicity; religion & belief; sexual orientation and transgender status / gender identity. The project also included and examined hate crime on the basis of age and gender. Key themes included: The impact of hate crime –many victims experience a number of different impacts simultaneously The nature of perpetration – characteristics, perceptions, triggers Reporting factors including whether the offender is known, the incident is isolated or ongoing, severity, tangible proof Inconsistencies in reporting and recording mechanisms Satisfaction with police and criminal justice system How to stop it Provision of support for victims. A3

Citizens Advice Shropshire Hate Crime page [Go to website] This website gives information about Hate Crime, what it is and how to report it in Shropshire.

A4

Health and Wellbeing Shropshire - ‘We Won’t Tolerate It’ [Go to website] In November 2006 a multi-agency protocol was launched to tackle hate crime and encourage people to come forward and report incidents throughout Shropshire. There are reporting sites throughout Shropshire including libraries, Housing Associations, colleges, leisure and recreation centres, and at reception points at local CAB offices, Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service HQ and Shropshire Council Area Headquarters, including the Shirehall.

A5. Leicester University Hate Crime Research Project: 2012 - 2014 [Go to website] Details of Findings and Recommendations Because of the significance of this research, a detailed summary of the key findings and recommendations is set out below Findings: a) How do people experience hate crime? Victims had experienced hate incidents ranging from violent attacks through to name-calling, harassment and intimidatory behaviour. Hundreds of victims referred to being routinely ignored, stared at, abused, threatened and spoken to in a belittling and derogatory manner on the basis of their perceived identity or ‘difference’. For many, these experiences were a feature of their daily lives. All can have a profound emotional and psychological impact on victims.


Page 54

Experiences included being sent hate mail or offensive text messages; windows of cars smashed repeatedly; being mimicked and mocked for a speech impediment or physical disability; having eggs thrown at their house or faeces pushed through their letter boxes; being befriended and then exploited, humiliated or robbed; and being intimidated and threatened at work, in the street, in pubs, clubs and restaurants and at home. The majority of those surveyed were victims of current and ongoing targeted hostility. For 59% of respondents the most recent experience of hate crime had been within the past year, and for 24% within the last month. For 55% their most recent experience of hate crime had been verbal abuse; for 29% harassment; for 13% property crime, for 9% violent crime, for 6% cyber bullying and for 4% sexual violence. Respondents with physical disabilities were more likely than others to have been very significantly affected by their most recent experience of hate crime (21% compared with 10% of the total sample), as were those who knew their offender(s) (15% compared with 10% of the total). b)

Who are the victims? Victims cited a wide range of identity characteristics as triggers for being targeted: Table 8 – Characteristics triggering hate incidents (by %)

Characteristic Race and ethnicity Dress and appearance Religion Gender (sex) Age

% 33 21 17 14 10

Characteristic Learning disability Physical disability Sexual orientation. Other 24

% 9 8 7 13

Women were more likely than men to say their dress and appearance had been prime factors in their victimisation (39% : 27%). 6 to 24 year olds were also more likely to refer to their dress and appearance (40% : 34% overall). Muslim respondents were more likely than others to cite their religion (76% : 29% overall). Experiences of some of the more marginalised groups (such as asylum seekers and refugees, European Roma and homeless people) and of those targeted on the basis of visual identity (such as age, gender [sex], larger body shape or alternative subcultures) were very similar in their nature, impact and selection of the victims to more recognised hate crimes. 50% cited more than one reason for being targeted: for example, race and religion; mental ill-health and physical or learning disability; or subcultural status (e.g. goth, emo or punk) and dress and appearance. Those who had been targeted for more than one reason were more likely than those targeted for one reason to say the incident had had a very significant impact on their quality of life. A similar pattern was apparent for victims’ concern about hate crime. Large numbers mentioned that they felt being seen as vulnerable by the perpetrator played a significant role in why they had been targeted.

24

‘Other’ included strong accent; a lack of religion, body shape or weight, education status, homelessness, immigration status and social status. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 55

c)

Where are people victimised? Table 9 – Locations of most recent hate incidents (by %)

Location Public street or park Outside or near their home City centre School, college or university In their home

% 32 22 13 10 10

Where hate crimes take place has a significant impact on how they affect victims, their families, and in some contexts their wider communities. This was particularly evident when incidents occurred in or near the victims’ homes. Those working in the night time economy had frequently experienced difficult situations when dealing with drunk and abusive customers. Many taxi drivers, restaurant workers and takeaway owners felt especially at risk of being harassed or abused while at work. Groups such as transgender, lesbian, gay and bisexual people felt especially vulnerable to acts of targeted hostility in settings such as schools, bars and nightclubs. Many, particularly those with physical or learning disabilities and those with highly visible ‘differences’ referred to being targeted on public transport. This included veiled women, trans men and women, asylum seekers and people of alternative sub-cultural appearance. d)

How does hate crime affect victims? Concern about hate crime was high across all respondent groups and about all types of hate crime. 67% of respondents were very or fairly concerned about being a victim of harassment, and 64% were very or fairly concerned about verbal abuse. 91% of respondents said the fear of hate crime had affected their quality of life to some degree. 95% of those who had experienced verbal abuse, harassment or cyber bullying felt it had had some form of impact on them: Table 10 – Impact of verbal abuse, harassment or cyber bullying – all respondents (%)

Impact Upset Anxious Angry Vulnerable

% affected 71 41 37 36

Table 11 – Upset by verbal abuse, harassment or cyber bullying (%)

Targeted because of: Transgender Gender (sex) Sexual orientation Religion

% upset 95 83 80 79

Among other impacts, the research revealed: Respondents whose most recent experiences of hate crime had involved harassment, property crime or violent crime were more likely than others to say it had affected them significantly 24% of respondents who had experienced targeted victimisation stated that their experiences had made them feel depressed. 51% of those victimised because of their physical disabilities stated that being a victim of targeted hostility had made them feel depressed.


Page 56

Of those targeted, 46% of people with mental ill-health, 38% of transgender people and 26% of people with learning disabilities were more likely to feel suicidal as a result of their victimisation than those targeted overall (7%). 72% of respondents targeted because of their mental ill-health or physical disabilities stated that the experience had made them feel vulnerable, compared with the overall 36%. Victimisation that is religiously motivated and within some of the smaller, more marginalised minority groups including trans, homeless and English Roma communities, demonstrated the wider community impact of hate crime. A sizeable proportion of victims employed coping strategies or defence mechanisms to deal with the threat of future victimisation. These ranged from changes in dress and/or appearance, including Sikh men cutting off their hair, Muslim women removing the veil and Muslim men shaving off their beards, to more practical strategies such as crossing the road to avoid large groups of people, bypassing certain areas altogether, carrying safety devices and installing CCTV. e)

Who are the perpetrators? 22% of respondents had experienced their most recent hate crime at the hands of a single offender, and the same proportion had been victimised by two offenders. For 28% of respondents three people or more had been involved. 68% of respondents stated that their most recent experience of hate crime had involved at least one male offender, and for 26% it had involved at least one female. 37% of respondents’ most recent hate crimes had involved an offender aged between 20 and 30. An additional 33% had involved a teenage offender. 61% of respondents stated that their last experience of hate crime had involved a white offender. 16% said it had involved someone Asian, and 12% someone black. Perpetrators of hate crime have commonly been thought of as strangers to the victim. However, this was the case in only 49% of the most recent incidents of hate crime. There has also been a prevailing assumption that hate crimes are committed by people from majority, established groups against those from minority backgrounds. However, the findings from this study illustrate a much more complex picture, with members of majority and minority groups, and established and new or emerging communities expressing prejudiced views and committing acts of targeted hostility. Only 4% of respondents’ most recent experiences of hate crime had gone to court. Participants were overwhelmingly in favour of educational approaches to tackling hate crime offending, rather than punishing offenders more severely through the higher sentencing tariffs available under hate crime legislation. Many respondents spoke positively about the capacity of restorative interventions to encourage offenders to comprehend the consequences of their actions for victims and their families.

f)

What support do victims need? Of the thousands of people with whom the research team engaged over the course of the project, only a small proportion understood what the term ‘hate crime’ referred to. Only 24% of survey respondents stated that they had reported their most recent experience of hate crime to the police. Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 57

Just 14% of those targeted because of their sexual orientation and 17% of those targeted for their alternative dress, appearance and lifestyle had reported their most recent experience to the police. In comparison, significantly higher reporting rates were evident among respondents who had been targeted because of their physical disabilities (56%) and/or learning disabilities (44%). 63% of respondents stated that they had reported their most recent experience of hate crime to the police because it was a serious crime, 48% in the hope that the offender(s) would be brought to justice, and 29% because it had happened before. 72% of respondents believed that the police had recorded their most recent experience of hate crime, and 43% believed that the police had investigated their most recent experience of hate crime. 55% of those who had reported their last experience of hate crime to the police said that they had been satisfied with the police’s response. 76% of respondents had not reported their most recent experience of hate crime to the police. When asked why, the most frequent explanations were that they did not feel the police would take it seriously (30%), that they dealt with it themselves or with the help of others (27%), or that the police could not have done anything (20%). 20% of those who had reported their most recent experience to the police would not encourage others to do so. Respondents who had known the offender(s) involved in their most recent experience of hate crime were more likely than others to say that they had not reported it to the police because it was a private matter (29% compared with 16%), for fear of retaliation (18% compared with 9%), or because they were too embarrassed (16% compared with 9%). Just 18% of survey respondents had reported their most recent experience of hate crime to an individual or organisation(s) other than the police. Other than police officers, respondents were most likely to share their experiences of hate crime with teachers (4%), followed by social care workers (2%), doctors or nurses (2%) or community leaders (1%). Although relatively few people had come into contact with Victim Support, those who had were generally satisfied with the response received. However, many research participants – and particularly those from some of the more marginalised and isolated groups of hate crime victims – often had very little, if any, knowledge of Victim Support and how to engage with its services. Victims’ views about levels of support provided by their local council and housing associations were overwhelmingly negative. Participants who had engaged with such organisations to access support services often found that the response they received had not helped but instead had simply reinforced their sense of victimisation, despair and isolation.


Page 58

g)

Recommendations: On the basis of the project findings the research team produced ten key recommendations which embody the needs and expectations of those whose lives have been directly affected by hate crime. These recommendations are available in the Victims’ Manifesto to which organisations have been invited to pledge support (see below). The relevance of these recommendations is not limited to any particular community, organisation or type of hate crime. They represent a wish list of the most commonly-cited needs and expectations shared collectively by victims from all kinds of backgrounds. As such, they are an important, achievable and victim-centred set of recommendations whose implementation can help to deliver more effective services for victims locally and nationally.

A6. Leicester Hate Crime Project: Victims’ Manifesto a) Frontline practitioners should treat victims with empathy, humanity and kindness. This first recommendation appears self-evident. However, over the course of this project hundreds of victims have shared their frustration and distress at feeling as though the professionals they turn to for support are not listening to them. Crucially, this was a common criticism directed not just at one organisation in particular but towards frontline practitioners across a range of different service providers. This reflects the fact that responding to hate crime is not simply a police or criminal justice issue but one that has relevance to all agencies with responsibilities for maintaining public safety, health and well-being. As this report has documented, hate crime has a significant emotional, physical and health-related impact on the victim. While this impact is far-reaching and often requires multi-layered responses, often what victims feel they need immediately and above all else is to be listened to and for their experiences to be taken seriously. b)

Organisations should consider early interventions before incidents escalate into violence. For many of the victims who took part in this research, hate crime formed part of their everyday lived reality. For a quarter of all respondents the individual(s) responsible for their victimisation were known to them, and we heard time and time again from victims who were repeatedly targeted by neighbours, young people from their local area, work colleagues or acquaintances. Often these incidents were being reported to the police or a non-criminal justice organisation, but due to the nature of the incident no action was taken. In a number of instances the harassment subsequently escalated into violent assault. When research participants were asked what would make for more effective service delivery, many spoke of their desire for organisations to recognise the pervasive and damaging nature of verbal abuse and harassment. If organisations were to take these incidents more seriously, and to intervene at an earlier stage, participants felt that this would prevent future victimisation and would make them feel less vulnerable and more supported.


Page 59

c)

Hate crime awareness campaigns should be publicised in more appropriate community locations. This report has highlighted victims’ lack of familiarity with the term ‘hate crime’; their lack of knowledge of what forms and types of crime can be considered ‘hate crimes’; and their lack of awareness of how to access support services. We are conscious that in recent years, and particularly at a local level, there has been an emphasis on developing and promoting hate crime awareness campaigns. However, the findings from this study illustrate that such campaigns are failing to resonate with people at a grassroots level, especially those from smaller and emerging minority communities and from economically disadvantaged environments. When our research participants were asked where hate crime awareness campaigns should be publicised, a range of appropriate places were suggested. These included community locations, entertainment venues and other large social spaces which bring people together, as well as supermarkets, bars, restaurants and coffee shops, public transport, leisure centres, places of worship, community and neighbourhood centres, GP surgeries and health centres, and places of work. All of these locations would help to connect those who are at risk of, or who have already experienced hate crime victimisation, with sources of support and help. In addition, participants in this study felt that hate crime awareness campaigns should avoid tokenism, and should be designed in consultation with victims and representatives from diverse communities in order to achieve visibility and impact.

5

d)

Public transport should be made safer for all. Many participants stated that travelling on public transport heightened their risk of suffering targeted hostility and increased their sense of vulnerability. This was especially the case for groups such as those with learning and/or physical disabilities and/or mental ill-health. The impact of being targeted on public transport was considerable, with victims taking significant measures to avoid certain routes that involved buses or trains, or even eschewing public transport altogether. One of the main suggestions for how public transport could be made safer related directly to the previous recommendation. Participants referred to the need for more visible campaigns that raised public awareness of hate crime, which would include a strong message that no forms of targeted hostility would be tolerated. It was also suggested by participants that public transport companies could promote clear reporting strategies for their customers, which would include something along the lines of the following statement: ‘If you have been called an abusive name, harassed or assaulted during your journey, or if you witness someone being targeted in any of these ways, then please report it and help to make public transport safer for us all’ This message could then be followed by a list of individuals or organisations that people can report to, such as a member of staff, the local council, an online reporting mechanism or the police. Poster campaigns detailing the harms of hate, fully-functioning and clearly visible CCTV cameras, and staff fully trained to recognise and deal with hate incidents were other practical suggestions offered by participants in this study which could make travelling on public transport safer for actual and potential hate crime victims.


Page 60

e)

The public should be encouraged to take appropriate action when witnessing hate crimes. We heard from many participants whose experiences of targeted hostility took place within a public setting. Seeing bystanders rushing past, turning a blind eye, or simply observing their victimisation without offering to assist directly or indirectly, often contributed to a heightened sense of humiliation and isolation. While the onus for reporting hate crimes often falls upon the individual victim, we heard from many participants who felt that witnesses could do much more to help in those situations. Crucially, their suggestions did not involve witnesses placing themselves in any danger, or taking direct action such as intervening when someone is being verbally abused or physically attacked. Rather, participants called for witnesses to do more by reporting the incidents they observed to an appropriate organisation or individual, or by checking whether a victim was OK after the altercation. Such suggestions could be factored into hate crime awareness campaigns in order to shift the responsibility for reporting away from just the individual victim, and to remind members of the public that we all have a collective responsibility to do what we can to challenge hate, prejudice and targeted hostility.

f)

Third party reporting mechanisms should be located, staffed and publicised appropriately. Very few of our research participants had reported their experiences to an organisation other than the police. Through the process of engaging with thousands of people from different communities, it became starkly evident how only a very small number of individuals knew that they could report a hate crime online or at places like their local library or community centre. Once the idea of third party reporting centres and mechanisms was explained to participants they were often positive about having an alternative outlet to police stations where they could report their experiences of victimisation. Key ways of making third party reporting schemes more accessible and effective would be for practitioners to use more proactive engagement methods to identify which public venues are used by specific communities to liaise and socialise; for practitioners to ensure that the people working in these venues have adequate knowledge of hate crime and reporting procedures; and for practitioners to publicise their availability appropriately and extensively using the methods suggested in Recommendation (c).

g)

Organisations should simplify reporting procedures and make them more victim-friendly. We heard from many participants who felt that the time and emotional stamina required to report a hate crime were often underappreciated by statutory and voluntary organisations. For those with work and childcare commitments or caring responsibilities, taking time off to report hate crimes was simply not an option open to them, particularly as these experiences were such regular events for large numbers of victims. Equally, participants felt that the levels of courage, patience and resilience needed in order to share harrowing experiences with an unfamiliar and potentially sceptical third party were commonly overlooked by practitioners.


Page 61

Concerns were also raised by numerous victims, and particularly those from new and emerging communities and those for whom English was not a first language, that the reporting process was far too complicated. Many of them referred to cultural and linguistic barriers which prevented them from reporting, and to needing more support and clearer lines of communication from police officers and practitioners through what can be a challenging and daunting process. h)

Organisations should engage more extensively with different groups and communities. One of the ways to bridge the gap between practitioners and those directly affected by hate crime is through more meaningful engagement. This report has outlined many of the barriers facing victims in terms of reporting their experiences to a relevant organisation and accessing support. All too often participants remarked that if police officers and other support services made more of an effort to engage with them then they would develop a more informed understanding of the issues victims faced, while victims themselves would feel that their experiences were being taken seriously. Rather than taking the more ‘obvious routes’ to accessing communities – via gatekeepers and self-appointed ‘leaders’, for example – we found that employing a ‘softer’, more subtle approach to engaging with a wide range of diverse communities was a more effective way of connecting with people. The research team spoke to people working in and spending time in scores of leisure sites and community meeting points across different parts of the city. Through this process of engagement with diverse groups and communities, we heard many individuals express annoyance at what they felt was the tokenistic approach taken by some organisations to community liaison, which often took the form of narrow lines of communication with self-styled community leaders. Such an approach can fail to represent the variety of experiences and concerns of people within and beyond these communities. For this reason many of our research participants called for the police and other relevant organisations to see community engagement as an integral part of their role, and to adopt a more comprehensive mode of engagement similar to the one utilised within this project.

7 i)

Voluntary and tailored community services should be supported and properly resourced. One of the main aims of this project was to identify ways of improving the quality of support provided to victims. This became ever more challenging as the project went on as more of the services which provide support for some of the most vulnerable and marginalised members of society were falling victim to government austerity measures. This was particularly evident in the context of tailored support services for people with learning and/or physical disabilities and people with mental ill-health. When participants were asked which services they turned to when they wanted to share their experiences of targeted victimisation and to receive support, they often mentioned small, voluntary and community-based groups rather than some of the more mainstream organisations. We heard from many participants who said that their voluntarily-run mental ill-health support group, locally-run women’s group, homeless shelter, and asylum seeker or refugee group (to name just some examples) were where they felt safe, supported and able to talk about their experiences.


Page 62

Unsurprisingly then, when asked what would improve the quality of support available for victims of hate crime, a common response was to call for more council and government support for those kinds of voluntary and community-based groups. Freeing up resources to support these groups is pivotal to their continued existence and can give them a platform to extend the level of support provided to service users dependent on their presence. j)

Non-punitive responses to hate offending should be pursued to challenge underlying prejudices. There is often an assumption that members of the public – and particularly victims of crime – demand punitive responses to offending behaviour. Within the context of this study however, participants showed an overwhelming preference for the use of educational interventions and restorative approaches to justice, as opposed to extended prison sentences or harsher regimes. Moreover, this preference was shared by victims of different types of violent and non-violent hate crime and from different communities, ages and backgrounds. Many participants spoke of wanting the offender to understand the impact that their behaviour had on them, their family and in some cases their wider community, and believed that this could be achieved through the use of facilitated mediation. More broadly, participants called for schools, youth workers and community groups to use educational programmes as a platform to inform young people about positive aspects of diversity, to connect divided and segregated communities, and to raise awareness of the harms of hate. Overall, participants felt that the use of smarter punishment – and not harsher punishment – offered a more effective route to challenging underlying prejudices, and therefore to preventing future offending. If you agree with the principles outlined in this Victims’ Manifesto and would like to pledge your support, then visit our website (www.le.ac.uk/centreforhatestudies) to find out more information. Your support could help to make a real difference to the lives of victims of hate crime. In addition to this Victims’ Manifesto, the research team has produced a comprehensive Findings and Conclusions report, an Executive Summary of key findings and a series of themed briefing papers covering specific strands of hate crime. Copies of these reports are available at www.le.ac.uk/centreforhatestudies.

A7. Shropshire Victim Support [Go to website] This website provides information about hate crime, what it is and how to report it A8. Suffolk Hate Crime Project [Go to website] This rural project provides a holistic service – liaising with agencies, providing support to victims and their families, assisting people with housing issues, offering signposting and referral. The project is particularly concerned with supporting agencies to develop their capacity to respond appropriately and breaking down barriers at all levels. The project has worked particularly closely with disabled people, exploring the complexities of hate crime and mate crime.


Page 63

A9. The Sussex Hate Crime Project [Go to website] The Sussex Hate Crime Project is exploring the indirect effects of hate crimes. Over three years they are working with Muslim people and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, in an attempt to understand how indirect experiences of hate crimes impact on individuals, communities and society in general. Hate crimes are a particular threat to the coherence of Britain’s multicultural society, not only threatening the personal safety and security of those directly victimised, but likely to increase feelings of fear, anger, and isolation in the victim’s identity group. A10. True Vision [Go to website] True Vision is the Association of Chief Police Officers supported site for hate crime reporting, where people can: • Find out what hate crimes and hate incidents are. • Find out how they can be reported. • Report using the online form. • Find information about people that can help and support victims. The site also provides research information, publications and statistics A11. Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality: Moving Forward Government Equalities Office (March 2011) [Download here] Recommendations relating to LGBT hate crime included: ... recognising the particular experience of Trans people in relation to Hate Crime: Conduct research into the handling of transphobic hate crime within the CPS to help improve services. Collect and share best practice in the delivery of appropriate refuge support for transgender people in need of safe and secure accommodation.


Page 64

Appendix B: Under-reporting Scoping Research Incident Survey: October 2015 FRESh (Fairness, Respect, Equality Shropshire Ltd) is a community co-operative. We promote equality, diversity and the elimination of unfair treatment and discrimination for people in and beyond Shropshire. Every year tens of thousands of people in Britain are upset or hurt in some way because of how they are seen by others. It can include physical violence and brutality, as well as harassment such as being spat at, being called names, being threatened, being bullied through social networking sites or text messages and damage to your house or car. These are all called hate incidents and affect all kinds of people from all walks of life. Sometimes incidents might seem trivial at the time, but when repeated they can cause the same enormous damage to victims, their families and friends, and to wider communities as bigger incidents. This short survey is anonymous and shouldn’t take longer than ten minutes to complete. We understand that remembering these incidents can be unpleasant, but it will help us to find out how often and what kinds of hate incidents happen in Shropshire. This will guide improvements in how hate incidents are reported, recorded and in the support given to victims. We’d be grateful for your help in filling it in, either online or by emailing or posting this document. Question 1 Has anything like this happened to you in Shropshire in the last 5 years?

No

Yes

If yes: Question 2 What happened? Please say roughly how many times it happened How often Type of incident (number of times) Verbal abuse Physical attack Offensive graffiti Offensive texts, emails, blogs or other online abuse Damage to property or possessions Repeated harassment Other (please say what)


Page 65

Hate incidents are triggered by how someone sees you. For example: they might target you because they suppose you are gay or lesbian even though you aren’t. Question 3 What do you think triggered it? What did they suppose about you? Please tick all that apply to any incident Supposed trigger My age – older person My age – younger person My alternative lifestyle or appearance My learning disability My mental health My physical disability My race, ethnicity or nationality My religion My sex My sexual orientation My social or economic status – class My transgender status Other (please say what) Question 4 If you can, please tell us roughly the month and year when each incident happened.


Page 66

For various reasons a lot of incidents are never reported to an official body. Question 5 If what happened to you was not reported, please tell us why not Please tick all that apply to any incident



I didn’t think it was important I didn’t think I’d be listened to or believed I didn’t think anything would be done I didn’t trust the reporting organisation I was worried about revenge action by the person(s) who did it I didn’t want to be seen as a tale-teller or ‘snitch’ I didn’t know I could report it I didn’t know where or how to report it Other (please say what)

Question 6 If what happened to you was reported, who was it reported to? Please say roughly how many times it was reported Organisation Number of Organisation times The police The council Citizens Advice (CAB) Victim Support Community reporting centre, Other, please please say where: say where:

Number of times

Question 7 What happened when you reported it? How were you treated? Please use about 20 words

Question 8 What was the result of the report(s)? Please use about 20 words


Page 67

Question 9 Were you satisfied with that result? Please tick one option Yes Not sure No



Question 10 Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

Please return this survey by attaching it to an email to [email protected] or by posting it to: FRESh, c/o 7 Severn Bank, Castlefields, Shrewsbury SY1 2JD

Thank you for taking the time to fill in this survey Support available Hate incidents can cause misery and distress, whether physical, mental, financial, emotional or spiritual. If you need support, please contact Victim Support on 0300 303 1977 (free & confidential). Reporting hate incidents If you want to report a hate incident that happened to you or someone else, you can contact the police or a third-party reporting centre. The police don’t have to be involved and you can report anonymously. Addresses and phone numbers for reporting in Shropshire are in this leaflet, or download a reporting form directly. Anonymous online reporting can be done via Crime Stoppers. FRESh’s research If you would like to talk to us about this survey or be involved in follow-up research, please contact us by email at [email protected]. This scoping research is funded by the Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group.


Page 68

Appendix C: Interview summaries and quotes from people subjected to hate incidents 1.

Al, who uses a motorised scooter to get around. “...nearly every time I go out I get shouted at – called names – spat on by kids and adults both. I don’t know - maybe they pick on me because of the way I look, maybe it’s the way I am. It’s been going on for years. They wouldn’t pick on other people; people like you with your stick, other people. “People say ‘take no notice’, but I can’t. I can talk to some people about it, but that doesn’t stop it. It just happens again. The kids start it and then their parents do it too. And the police don’t do anything.”

2.

Comment from Pat, who’s homeless “I keep to myself. You just keep looking at the ground...”

3.

Tara, a transgender woman “...I’ve been through a lot of nasty stuff both at home and in public places: offensive graffiti, smashed windows, constant ‘knock and run’, staring, being followed, shouted abuse at and worse, much worse. I want to use my story to help others, to educate people, show them how hate incidents can destroy a person, their mental wellbeing, their life. You know, everyone has got a limit to how much they can take. I know I’ve got one. I have hit someone in the past. I just snapped. I couldn’t take it anymore. I have done an anger management course since then. Now I just take on a warning stance that’s all. In general I feel quite strong, but when something happens that feeling can leave me. Then I run. About a year ago the police said “Tara, don’t report any more hate incidents.” So I haven’t. But that doesn’t mean nothing happened. I do think you should always report everything, otherwise you feel like a prisoner in your own house. I’ve already installed CCTV and there was a time when I would regularly barricade my door to stop the bullies from coming in. At the time the police advised me to move away, which I did. Police also told me to dress older, more conservatively, you know: no short dresses. I now wear trousers more often. I’m very careful about whom I give my phone number to, and even more so about my address. In the evening I only leave my house if it’s quiet out. It’s not about whether it’s light or dark. It’s to do with the pub next door and some other let’s say ‘night-time economy’ places in my street. I get a lot of abuse from their customers. I might have to move again. There aren’t very many places I can go that are safe. The lesbian, gay and bisexual gettogether once a week is one. And most of the people at my church accept me. If Shrewsbury felt more safe I would stay, but I might move to the countryside. I like the green, the quiet, and I feel safer there. It would take longer to travel to services I want to use or need, but that is the case now anyway.


Page 69

I’m prone to depression, when something happens. I sometimes binge eat or self-harm. I really need my exercise. It makes me feel better. But I’ve stopped horse riding and dance classes, because of discrimination and comments from fellow students. At the swimming pool in Shrewsbury they won’t let me use the women’s changing room so now I go to Ludlow where they have a gender-neutral changing room, but only when I can afford it. I have written so many job applications. I do have some experience and a qualification, but when I have an interview my nerves get in the way. How will they react to me? Sometimes I feel an employer wouldn’t be in their right mind if they were to hire me… I’m so frightened of physical attack, rape and ultimately murder. That story recently about the transgender woman murdered in London really upset me. That could be me. I’d like a break from this hell I’m in. With a break I don’t mean something like suicide, although I have thought about it… I don’t mean a holiday either. With a break I mean not being on the margin any more, actually being allowed to contribute to my community as myself without fear. And, for instance, fighting for some other cause, something like town Christmas lights.” 4.

Hesitation to report: the Rainbow Film Festival You might think that people who are keyed in to the concepts of hate incidents, hate crimes, discrimination, homophobia and so on would have no qualms reporting a hate incident when it happens to them. No such thing. I went to interview two of the organisers of the Shropshire Rainbow Film Festival about an incident earlier this year. Peter and Geoff are as I say on the ball: they have gone into schools to educate young people on what it means to be gay in a hetero-normative society, Geoff is part of a police Independent Advisory Group, both are active members of FRESh. Yet, when the following happened to them, they hesitated to report. The Rainbow Film Festival (RFF) is a gay and lesbian film festival that takes place in Shrewsbury every October. This year they also organised some individual screenings in other Shropshire market towns during Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History month. When Peter and Geoff were getting ready to go to their second screening taking place in Market Drayton, they received an email from one of the other organisers copying in the following tweet that had been received on the RFF account: “Have a fire extinguisher ready If it’s a cocksuckers event it will be Burns night. If it’s lizard licking you might be ok” The email added almost jokingly ‘Is this our first hate tweet?’ They laughed about that. Homophobia is such a background to their lives. I ask “what was the second thing you thought?”... “Actually, this is serious. You don’t know who sent it. Even if it’s meant as a joke, it’s still threatening. We didn’t feel anything was likely to happen, but if something did, then we were the organisers. We’ve got an audience, volunteers and a cinema to look after. Moreover, you should never let something like this go. The festival is actually partly about educating people; of course we had to report.” But then doubt kicks in. Geoff says: “I thought, am I being overly dramatic? Is it really that serious? Isn’t it just a joke?” Peter adds “We aren’t Twitter users. Is this actually the normal level of banter you can expect to see there? I wondered if I was overstating. What would other people think? Are we bothering people for nothing if we report?” For Geoff another matter played a big role. He relates how he tried to report a homophobic hate incident years ago and was sent away by the police. “No way would they let me report it. You can’t help those feelings from over 30 years ago flood back, even though those fears might now be unjustified.” Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 70

Peter elaborates: “Hate is such a strong word, you don’t necessarily identify with it. We come across homophobia more than hate. In the first two or three years of organising the festival it was hard to get our posters up in shops, and posters outside would be taken down … You try and keep your ear to the ground to know where other people go out. Not necessarily gay people, they can be straight people you trust. Just so you know that you’re going into a place where you can expect some support if something did happen.” Analysing their self-doubt they realise it is fuelled by all those conversations they’ve had with ‘quite liberal people’ who just don’t get that there is something to get about homophobia. “It’s not a problem for them to be around gay people, so they don’t see there is still an issue. When you do talk about how it feels to be gay in this society these people say that you’re overly sensitive, taking things too personally. They say ‘stop going on about it, don’t make a fuss.’ The effect is that you choose not to talk about certain things in your life. You don’t talk about what you did over the weekend because people might think you are broadcasting the fact that you are gay or that you are trying to make a point. So in a way you become less spontaneous.” I ask them where is the dividing line, when does homophobia become hate? Geoff: “Everyone has a right to their prejudices. Homophobia makes us feel uncomfortable and we might avoid certain places, neighbourhoods or people almost without realising we do that. It’s not something you want to legislate against. We want to have the debate with people.” Peter: “On the other hand you do have to live your life. You can’t rise to and challenge everything. You’d be an unpopular, boring person. So you choose your battles. However, when someone is aggressive, or voices something loudly in public or makes us feel threatened, that is hate. That is when you need to report.” To get reassurance about what to do about the tweet they decide to ring the Equality & Diversity Coordinator at West Mercia police. “They were very clear: yes this is serious, report it.” Geoff then rings the 101 number and again is taken extremely seriously. “They never once questioned that it was threatening. They were very caring and asked how we were feeling.” On the way to Market Drayton they are a bit shaky. “The feeling that someone hates us this much to do this. And how serious is it; does this person live around the corner? Do they know who we are? We felt queasy.” But still there was that self-doubt. Which meant they were surprised when uniformed police actually turn up at the venue to take their statement. The seriousness of the situation really sinks in. The next day they find out that the police had arrested the perpetrator two hours later. He had a record of racist tweets as well. Within weeks he is convicted. The whole experience has increased Pete and Geoff’s confidence in the police. If it happened again they would have no doubt about reporting. 4.

Sarah, a Shropshire resident who has experienced mental health issues herself, campaigns actively to change the public’s view of people with mental health issues. Sometimes she uses Twitter for that purpose. Last Halloween she challenged a brewery via Twitter over a poster for a brewery pub advertising their Halloween ‘Mental Asylum weekend’ with the words ‘Deranged doctors/nurses, mental patients’. In the morning she tweets: “Being mentally ill, not a joke Here we go again with Bad Taste Halloween towards #MentalHealth”


Page 71

Sarah is one of a number of people complaining. Consequently the posters are taken down, the brewery apologises and promises training for the pub’s employees. But that is not where it ends for Sarah. Hate tweets start pouring into her Twitter timeline. By the end of the afternoon she writes us: “In tears re level nasty tweets on timeline…” This time she shrugs it off and goes out to enjoy the autumn colours. 5.

Lex, a Shropshire teenage Goth. “I have never been a victim of hate crime as such. It’s more that people judge me and are rude to me because of my appearance ... “

7.

Lucy talks about ‘friendly’ Shrewsbury Lucy talks about being mocked and harassed in Shrewsbury, where she and Pam have lived for about eighteen months: “Before we came here we lived in the north, where we had a really horrible experience with Pam (my wife) being seen as a man, and issues around her using a women’s toilet. The police were involved, but didn’t do anything. Pam and I were walking across the Welsh Bridge at around 8.20 on an evening in July or August 2014, soon after we moved to Shrewsbury. I remember noticing that a group of men were coming towards us, and that they were laughing. Pam started having a asthma attack. She was carrying a heavy rucksack, which had her inhaler in it. I grabbed it and quickly started looking inside for the inhaler. I noticed the men again – it was all very quick – I was asking her “where’s your puffer??” Pam started to choke. “Lezzers!!” Obscene gestures, laughter, mockery – one grabbing his genitals... “F... off! Go away! She’s having an asthma attack!” They are all jeering, the one still gesturing at his crutch. Pam trying to calm down. I step towards the group. They run away. There was nobody else around. I felt sick. Pam, managed to breathe, and we walked on. I felt really shaken. Over the next few days I kept thinking ‘I can’t believe people can be so vile. Would they have done it if Pam hadn’t been struggling?’ I wanted to be able to say to them ‘how dare you laugh at my wife; at our relationship?’ I didn’t expect this in a friendly little town. This happens in the big cities. Not here. It still hurts. We didn’t report it. It was only later, after talking with Ann from the police that we even realised we could have. Now, if I saw something or had anything like that happen to me again I would report it. It’s really important. You have to take action, or it will never be stopped. I’m tougher now.”


Page 72

Appendix D: Hate Crime Quiz

1.

Which of the incidents below are against the law?

Incident a)

An Asian woman serving in a takeaway is called a ‘Paki bitch’ by a customer

b)

A man in a wheelchair is waiting to cross at pedestrian lights. A non-disabled woman pushes in front of him, preventing him from crossing

c)

A gay couple is walking down the street hand in hand. A passing car driver opens the window and shouts “F---ing queers!” at them

d)

A local group organises a march through their town to protest against the proposed building of a mosque

e)

An older man is walking home after dark. A young man runs up to him and kicks away his walking stick, shouting “sad old cripple” before running away.

Not against the law

Against the law

Please tick

2.

Do the police have to be involved when a hate crime or incident is reported? Don’t Yes No know

3.

What are the percentages of reported race, homophobic and transphobic and disability hate crime in Shropshire from January 2012 to April 2015? Category of hate crime Race Homophobia and transphobia Disability

Please tick those that apply % % %    70 58 48 36 16 8 28 22 14


Page 73

4.

Where can you go to report a hate incident or hate crime? (Please tick) 

Location Abbots Wood Day Centre, Shrewsbury

5.

Location



Shrewsbury Fire Station

Craven Arms Police Station

Discovery Centre, Craven Arms

T he Three Fishes pub, Shrewsbury

Severndale School, Shrewsbury

Theatre Severn box office, Shrewsbury

Ludlow Town Council offices

Victim Support, Shrewsbury

Shrewsbury CAB

Severnside Housing Association, Shrewsbury

The Hive Shrewsbury

Shrewsbury railway station

The Talbot Centre Oswestry

Stonham Housing Association Whitchurch

The Victoria Centre Oswestry

In 2014, which area of Shropshire had the highest number of reported hate incidents and hate crimes? 

Area North Shropshire Central Shropshire South Shropshire 6.

To whom are hate crime incidents reported? To the police 10% 30% 50% 70% 90%

To community reporting centres 90% 70% 50% 30% 10%

Tick one


Page 74

7.

Which of the following are recognised by Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group as characteristics which may give rise to hate incidents and crimes? Characteristic Age (older or young people)

8.





Characteristic Geographical location (where people live)

Culture or lifestyle

Race, ethnic origins or nationality

Disability

Religion or other belief

Economic or social status (class)

Sex (being a woman or a man)

Gender identity (transgender)

Sexual orientation

Have you ever been attacked, abused or harassed because of what the attacker believed about some aspect of who you are? (For example your race, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, and so on)

Yes

No

If ‘yes’, may we contact you to arrange to interview you for the Hate Crime Scoping Research project?

Yes

No

Tear off here ................................................................................................... If you answered ‘yes’ to both parts of question 8, or if you’d like us to keep you informed about the progress of the Hate Crime Scoping Research project, please give your contact details below. We will not contact you for any other purpose, and we will never pass on your contact details to others without your permission Your name Your postcode Your email address Your daytime telephone number Please hand in this part of the quiz to a facilitator, or post it to FRESh, 7 Severn Bank, Shrewsbury SY1 2JD


Page 75

Appendix E: Workshops held at FRESh Equality Forum on 3rd December 2015 1.

Workshop on sexism and hate crime a) Background The Home Office definition of a hate crime says that it “... targets people because of their identity and it causes psychological harm and creates fear....” The group reckoned sexism and violence against women has that effect. For example, many women are afraid to go out at night On being asked what they most fear about men, 100 women replied; “being killed”. Asked what they most fear about women most men say “being laughed at”! 25 Impacts of hate crime on women’s mental health b)

Violence against women Violence against women is almost normalised in our society (cf Everyday Sexism Project) [Go to website] Violence against women manifests in many different ways. It is often ongoing and done to women by men they know There is a lot of debate about whether violence against women should be considered as hate crime. Is being whistled at in the street a hate incident? Some women aren’t bothered by this kind of behaviour. Others feel belittled and uncomfortable – an unwelcome self-awareness Violence against women tends to be individualised – others blame them and women blame themselves – how they dress, where they go, how much they drink... The role of self-censorship – where we go, who we mix with. This takes away women’s autonomy and freedom.

c)

Is it ‘hate’? The word ‘hate’ is very emotive – many wouldn’t identify with it in this context…..it feels too strong. The UN talk of ‘gendered terrorism’. Can violence against women be seen both as hate crime and as other criminal acts – does it have to have a single label? In the USA they talk about the motivation for a crime – not all crime against black people is motivated by racism…maybe we can learn from this?

25

Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, "They are afraid women will laugh at them." When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, "We're afraid of being killed." Cited in A Woman's Worst Nightmare; Mary Dickson 1996 [Download here] Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 76

If violence against women is motivated by a reaction to women’s appearance or behaviour based on sexist assumptions about women and girls, is that a hate crime? d)

Power and sexism Sexism is not necessarily a hatred of women – indeed some men may argue that it’s because they ‘love’ women. It is often based on prejudice about how women should behave…we talked quite a lot about the role of prejudice. There is an element of power in all incidents – sexist bullying and forcing compliance. workplace abuse of power – sexism All public and private space has power dynamics – men who feel they have the right to comment on and behave disrespectfully towards women. Why do they feel they have this right? Is this power?

e)

What is hate crime? “You don’t belong” – gendered crime……women are seen as weaker, less capable, less than…. We talked about ‘intersectionality’ – a combination of characteristics – which is fiendishly complicated. There is a danger of watering down violence against women and girls by lumping it all under ‘hate crime’. Social media – a woman MP who voted for war was threatened with rape. Women lose power/status A whole spectrum of insults We talked about the legal implications – reporting – CPS decisions – are the rules of evidence different for hate crime, as for rape? Could it be useful to see violence against women as a type of hate crime – to raise general awareness of the impact of stereotypes, prejudice and power on women? It might help turn the tables on the idea that women are in some way responsible for being sexually assaulted.

2.

Workshop on alternative appearance and hate crime a) Background The definition of hate crime on the ‘True Vision’ website is: “... any crimes that are targeted at a person because of hostility or prejudice towards that person’s: • Disability • Sexual Orientation • Race or ethnicity • Transgender identity • Religion or belief Alternative culture has been recognised as a trigger for hate incidents by many police forces since the notorious murder of Sophie Lancaster in Rossendale, Lancashire in 2007. This recognition demonstrates a developing understanding of hate incidents and the responses to them.


Page 77

West Mercia Police defines hate incidents and crimes as: “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s: • Race or perceived race (would include nationality, national origin, ethnic origin, race and colour) - Racist Hate Crime. • Religion or perceived religion - Religious Hate Crime. • Sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation - Homophobic Hate Crime. • Disability or perceived disability - Disability Hate Crime. • Transgender or perceived transgender - Transphobic Hate Crime. OR • (An) individual characteristic that makes someone appear different, e.g. alternative lifestyle, culture, physical appearance and style of dress. Shropshire Hate Crime Reporting Group defines hate crimes and incidents as: “A hate crime is an offence committed against a person or property, which is motivated by the perpetrator’s hostility and prejudice towards people because they are seen as being different. A hate Incident is an offence which is not a crime, again motivated by the perpetrator’s hostility and prejudice towards people because they are seen as being different. … Hate crime covers race, disability, sexual orientation, faith, age, gender identity, alternative lifestyles, culture and sex.”. The FRESh hate crime research suggests that there is a strong case for explicitly recognising prejudice against several other groups of people as triggers for hate crimes, including: • People who are fat or thin • People with HIV/ Aids • Homeless people • Women • People who are facially disfigured b).

Alternative approaches to definition This workshop was about the case for including within hate crimes and incidents those triggered by prejudice against people whose appearance falls outside mainstream culture and norms,. It was agreed that the issue is wider than people’s appearance, and includes, for example, autism, Aspergers, learning disabilities and mental health issues; none of which are immediately visible to others. Criminal Justice and affiliated organisations currently use definitions of hate incidents and crimes which spell out the characteristics which can provide triggers for incidents. This approach is both prescriptive and likely to produce ever-longer definitions as the range of triggers expands. Most of these definitions do not specify age or sex, despite both being protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. There is a growing movement to shift the definition of hate incidents towards one in which they are defined by victims and third parties as hate-motivated, Under-reporting of hate incidents in Shropshire – Scoping Report January 2016

Page 78

along the lines proposed for racist incidents in the Stephen Lawrence Report; ".... any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person". As well as being simpler and less bureaucratic, this approach is particularly attractive when considering triggers that may be difficult to define by characteristics, such as body size, disfigurement, homelessness, HIV/ Aids status. This approach has been adopted by (among others) the Leicester Hate Crime Project (“...an act of victimisation that you feel was targeted directly towards you because of who you are. This would include a wide range of acts such as being called an abusive name, being bullied, or being physically attacked, to name just a few examples”), the Sussex Hate Crime Project (“...any crime that is perceived by the victim, or a witness, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards an aspect of the victim's identity”) and FRESh (“... where a person or group of people is insulted, harassed, belittled or attacked because those doing so dislike or hate what they think the victim is, based on seeing her or him as ‘other’ or ‘not like us’, or as in some way less than them.”) The workshop considered a number of related factors: • The use of “hate” as part of the “hate crime” title is problematic. Workshop participants considered that it was not understood by many and was offputting for many more, compounding the problem of public awareness of and engagement in the campaign. Hatred is not the same as discrimination, and “hate crime” fails to distinguish between incidents prompted by ignorance and thoughtlessness and those prompted by malice and an intention to hurt and create distress or fear. • The possibility of an approach which uses both self-definition and some characteristics was discussed. On reflection this was felt to contain the disadvantages of both models with the benefits of neither. • There is a strong need to plan and launch an effective and sustained campaign on the issues. The current social, economic and political climate mitigates against positive attitudes on equality, anti-discrimination and positive action, and hate crime initiatives can be dismissed as “political correctness” by mainstream culture and media. There is an urgent need to increase public awareness of what hate incidents are, and of their real impact on the lives of individuals and communities.


Page 79