The Home Office is Hiding Anti-White Hate Crimes and Helping the Cover-up of Grooming Gangs
The following is Ella Hills response's to the home offices most recent letter, her analysis of hate crime data, and it's presentation shows a trend to under represent anti-white crime crimes.
Dear Tackling Exploitation and Abuse Unit,
I am writing in response to your kind letter dated 19 May. Thank you for acknowledging that Grooming Gang Crime is Hate Crime, but the Home Office still hasn’t addressed my complaint about racial and religious discrimination, outlined in my open letter dated 19 April.
This is my last letter of complaint to you about Home Office’s direct and indirect racial and religious discrimination towards myself, and other grooming gang survivors. The Home Office is treating us less favourably than Hate Crime victims from other identity groups, on grounds of our race and perceived religion.
The Institutional racism and religious discrimination that I have experienced from Police, CPS, media, counselling services, the BBC, and Hate Crime Services (outlined in my previous letter) all stems from the biased practices, and the misleading documents produced by the Home Office Hate Crime Unit.
For years now the Home Office Hate Crime reports, and House of Commons briefing papers, are deeply statistically flawed, racially and religiously discriminatory, and demonstrate a harmful left wing political/ideological bias.
In this letter I will prove that the Hate Crime Unit at the Home Office has been covering up grooming gang crime for at least the past 14 years. These discriminatory practices against this type of hate crime victim have disadvantaged me personally, and hundreds of thousands of other people in the same protected groups as me.
Apart from the unfair practice of only including Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) data for victims aged over 16 years (which is age discrimination against grooming gang crime victims, who are typically aged under 16 years) The Home Office also records, and presents, Hate Crime data in an unfair way which ‘directly and indirectly’ racially and religiously discriminates against grooming gang survivors.
The Home Office report Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2019-2020 follows a similar format to the format that has been used and replicated in Hate Crime reports for the past 16 years:
1. The way that race hate data is presented deliberately hides the fact that the largest proportion of race hate crimes in England and Wales are anti-White hate crimes (over 41%).
The presented data only emphasises the weighting (0.1%). This has the effect of minimising the suffering of White victims, compared to other groups. This statistical omission of overall percentage data is clearly a deliberate cover up of anti-White hate crime, and is racial discrimination against White victims of hate crime, including grooming gang survivors.
The House of Commons Hate Crime Briefing paper, December 2020, also falsely compares hate crime weightings for White people (0.1%) against weightings for ‘Other ethnic group’ (1.1%). The correct comparison is against ‘all other (non-White) ethnic groups’, which is actually 0.9%. So theirs is a false and deliberately misleading comparison, attempting to deceive people into thinking that non-White people are more likely to be victims of race hate crime than they really are, and White people are less likely to be victims of race hate crime than they really are.
There has also been ‘cherry picking’ of data from high Black ethnicity population areas of England, where there is proportionally more anti-Black hate crime (30%), compared to the national average of 15% (which is hidden from us in the report).
The national anti-White hate crime percentage, which is the highest overall percentage of race hate crime, is 41%. This has been deliberately completely omitted from the report, and the data is deliberately skewed to deceive readers into thinking that anti-White hate crime is a much smaller problem nationally, which is not true.
2. The report doesn’t have categories for hate crimes targeted against someone’s ‘lack of religion’ or ‘lack of religious belief’. This omission is clear religious discrimination against victims targeted for having a perceived ‘lack of religious belief’. (This includes grooming gang victims).
The categories (based on census categories) ignore the laws around religious ‘hostility’ as defined by The Sentencing Act 2020, section 66 (6)(b):
3. The way that religious hate crime data is presented emphasises the overall proportion of recorded hate crimes against people perceived to be Muslim (50%). This has the effect of disproportionately inflating the suffering (by implied false statistical comparison) of Muslim hate crime victims.
The report hides the fact that the weighting of anti-Muslim hate crimes is only 0.1%, which is the same weighting as anti-White hate crimes (0.1%).
4. The report says that data for anti-Muslim terrorist attacks is included as hate crime (including Finsbury Park Mosque attack), but not the data for religiously aggravated attacks carried out by Muslims against people perceived to be non-Muslim (including Manchester Arena Bombing).
This is clearly religious discrimination against the victims who are targeted for having a ‘lack of Muslim belief’.
5. The report shows old data for perpetrators’ race (2012-2016), presented in a way that makes white perpetrators look as bad as possible. The report hides the fact that the worst ethnic group weighting for convictions of hate crime in 2019 is Black (0.01% compared to 0.00% for all other ethnic groups). This choice of data presentation shows racial discrimination that attempts to make White perpetrators look like the most likely race to commit racially or religiously aggravated hate crime offences, which is not true. Black perpetrators are.
6. Only 0.2% of prosecuted hate crimes are sexual assaults, which confirms what we have been told.
Police and CPS have not been trained to record and prosecute sexual assaults as racially/religiously aggravated offences, whilst they have been actively encouraged to prosecute public disorder offences, and online communications as racially and religiously aggravated offences
When multiple sexual offences are prosecuted as racially aggravated, they are often only charged as one single rape. So 100 rapes counts the same as one hate speech hate crime. This is unfair.
7. The combined effects of these factors: Excluding victims aged under 16 years from the data, ‘cherry picking’ of data from geographical areas of high Black ethnicity, excluding data from victims targeted for their ‘lack of religious belief’, selectively omitting race data that shows that 41% of race hate crime in England and Wales is anti-White hate crime, selectively omitting religious hate crime data that shows that a Muslim is no more likely to be a victim of hate crime than a White person, excluding data from bombings and Jihadi stabbings by falsely claiming that these are not ‘religious’ attacks when they obviously are, omitting data from Greater Manchester Police (a hotspot for grooming gang crime), and failing to encourage Police to flag/prosecute sexual offences as hate crimes ... proves that there has been a deliberate institutional cover up of grooming gang crime for the past 14 years. These practices are discriminatory, unfair and unlawful. These biased and discriminatory ‘hate crime reports’ are a form of left-wing propaganda, that are making survivors and our families very angry.
It is deeply concerning to discover that the top public body (that has been tasked with the responsibility of defending the British public), has been deliberately covering up attacks on British people. The Home Office Hate Crime Unit isn’t defending us from racial and religious attacks. It is defending our perpetrators, and hiding the statistical evidence of their crimes against us. The Hate Crime Unit has deliberately acted to thwart the ability of the Government to respond appropriately to grooming gang crime.
The Home Office must take the following action to reform their Hate Crime practices:
1. The Home Office must retract these biased, divisive and inaccurate Hate Crime reports. They must then be re-written, using the same data, in non-biased and non-discriminatory way. All future Hate Crime reports must present the race Hate Crime data in a fair way that doesn’t deliberately minimise the suffering of White victims of racial hate crime. They can do this by showing overall percentages as well as weightings.
2. The following new categories must be added to the Police ‘flagging’ options for groups targeted in religious hate crime (in line with the Sentencing Law 2020). Religious hate crime data tables including raw data, weightings and percentages for these new flags must be included from now on:
3. The Home Office must present religious Hate Crime data in a fair way that doesn’t deliberately maximise the appearance of anti-Muslim hate crime. This can be done by showing raw data, and weightings, as well as overall percentages.
4. The Home Office must record all hate crimes targeted against people perceived by their perpetrators to have a ‘lack of religion’ in a fair way. This means including victims of torture, and victims of anti-‘lack of religion’ terrorist attacks (currently excluded from data), as well as victims of anti-Muslim terrorist attacks (like the Finsbury Park attack), that are currently already included in the data.
5. The Home Office must present perpetrator data in a way that doesn’t disproportionately demonise White perpetrators, or minimise the appearance of crimes committed by non-White perpetrators. This can be done by showing raw data and weightings, as well as percentages.
6. The Home Office must *specifically* instruct all Police forces to report all grooming gang crime as Hate Crime, by applying one of these new religion flags, and/or applying a race flag, where these apply to sexual assaults.
7. The Home Office must produce a specific hate crime data table on sexual assaults, to highlight this very important issue, and therefore to put a focus on preventing this type of hate crime.
If these reforms are successfully implemented it will lead to an increased level of protection for individuals/communities at high risk of becoming victims of grooming gang crime. Authorities will be empowered to act to protect people like me who are being targeted because of our perceived ‘Whiteness’ and/or because of our perceived ‘lack of religion’.
Britain has got more anti-White race hate crime than any other type of race hate crime. If the Home Office does not act to address it, by correcting their racially and religiously discriminatory practices, then I understand that the next legal stage is for me to refer my unaddressed grievances to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Dr Ella Hill
Dr Ella Hill is a medical doctor and mother. When she was a teenager she met a much older Pakistani Muslim man from Rotherham who became her ‘boyfriend’. Over the course of a year he beat and raped her over 100 times, and took her to houses and flats above take aways in the North of England to be raped and gang-raped. When she tried to escape he carried out an attempted ‘honour killing’, which she survived, with multiple fractures and lacerations. Her main perpetrator was part of a larger network of offenders who did the same thing to many more teenage girls in Rotherham. Ella has recovered and now campaigns to get acknowledgment of the racist and religious aspects of the abuse she, and others, had to endure.