Ask me what I hate. Lots of things. I hate that the Scots pay higher taxes than the English. I hate that so many people still eat animals and abuse and kill them. I hate that the health minister went to football matches and thinks we’ll believe him when he says it was work. I hate that I’m not the same weight I was when I was 17. There are lots of things I hate. How long have you got?

Now give me your list. Tell me about the things you hate, and who. Trump (or Harris). Badenoch (or Starmer). Clarkson (or Lineker). Unionism. Nationalism. That guy in the office. Your wife’s brother. Your brother’s wife. I do not judge you for any of this. It is normal. If you didn’t hate someone, or something, I’d be worried. I’d think there was something wrong with you.

But let’s talk about hate a bit more because some of us, especially some of us with uniforms and name badges, have lost touch with what hate is and how to handle it. Hate, or an intense dislike, is normal, unavoidable, and get more than one person in a room for any reason whatsoever and you’ll discover how true that is. That doesn’t mean the authorities shouldn’t intervene when there’s a risk of a crime being committed – they should. But the recent primacy of hate – or what is seen as hate – as a political, legal and social issue has become a problem and a rebalancing is required.

The latest furore over X is a case in point. You may have noticed The Guardian announcing this week, in a post fragrant with left-wing certainty, that they were leaving X because of what they called the disturbing content on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. They said the site had become toxic and its owner Elon Musk has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse. So off The Guardian goes, with a flounce and a tut. Ta-ta.

My first question is: where have they been all these years? X has always been full of horrible stuff because it allows human beings to use it and lots of human beings can be horrible, just like they can be thoughtful, clever, witty, inspiring and hopeful. What The Guardian actually appears to be upset about is that the views of people like Elon Musk are not being edited out or blocked. They appear to crave a place that isn’t “toxic” or “hateful” but what they really mean is a place they share only with people who agree with them.


Read more

Another idea of the Scottish Greens goes up in smoke. Happy days

A simple way to fix the problem of the disrespectful grave stickers


You can see more of this with some of the people on X who are wringing their hands over whether to leave or not. Take a look. It’s a hoot. They post on X about how horrible and hateful it is and how they’re thinking about leaving but they’re clearly also afraid that leaving will diminish the attention they get. Some of them seem tempted by Bluesky, which you can more easily edit to remove people you disagree with, and appear to think it will be more positive and supportive because their opinions are positive and supportive and other people’s opinions are hateful and toxic. And it’s delusional because all sites have people on them.

I think it's against this backdrop, where “hate” and “opinions you disagree with” have become conflated, that we should look at how the concept is affecting government policy and the behaviour of the police in particular. You may have read the case I wrote about earlier this year of Angus Cameron, the preacher who read from the Bible on Buchanan Street and was arrested for “homophobic language”. He was told a non-crime hate incident had been logged against him but he fought the decision and won £5,500 for unlawful detention and £9,400 to cover his costs. The record of the non-crime was also deleted from Police Scotland’s records.

You’d think the police would learn from cases like this but apparently not. The Tory MSP Murdo Fraser has written to the police watchdog this week calling for an investigation into the non-crime hate incident that was recorded against him for saying that choosing to identify as non-binary is as valid as choosing to identify as a cat. The journalist Allison Pearson was also visited on Sunday by the police who told her she was being investigated over a tweet from a year ago. There’s disagreement between the police and Pearson about what exactly happened but it’s certainly in the same ball-park: the police investigating opinions.

(Image: Murdo Fraser)

The problem here is that what began as concern about genuine crime motivated by hate – I’ve spoken to people who’ve been victims of it; gay-bashing for example – has morphed into something different. I don’t know what Allison Pearson said in her tweet – perhaps it was hideous. I also wouldn’t have worded my opinions on the non-binary issue in the way Mr Fraser did. But hideous, or ill-advised, or angry, or hateful should not be the concern of the police unless there is evidence that a crime might take place. Opinions themselves are not crimes and should never be.

I hope that we’re starting to get this, but I worry. It doesn’t help that some people write on X (when they’re not faux-threatening to leave it) that it’s full of hate and we need to find a non-hateful place instead. Good luck with that matey because if you can’t see hate, you’re not looking properly.

Also: you are not a “victim” of opinions, you are simply someone with a different point of view. And do not seek to remove or edit or silence an opinion, seek to challenge it or counter it. And before you use the word “hate”, have a proper think about what you really mean. Do you just mean someone who disagrees with you?