Actual Met hate crime policy guidance:



Particularly egregious: "isn't a crime(!!) but the victim, or anyone else(!!), believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate...may (when exactly? when they are deemed an 'enemy of the people' perhaps?) be possible to charge with an offence"

Actual UK Government anti-discrimination guidance:

The lunacy speaks for itself.. what are interview processes but a means of determining and discriminating upon personal characteristics of applicants?

So what, the wording might be a little wishy-wash but it's still a good idea in principle no?

Let me start with this: of course prejudice, hate, racism, sexism, third-moon-of-mars-ism (you get the point..) exist.

That is not the problem here. The problem lies with tasking government with legislating against these extremely complex and difficult to measure phenomena. Once you let the government decide what are the 'valid' forms of prejudice or hate, what constitutes a valid 'other perceived difference', you leave the door wide open for tyranny to creep in. The legislation basically mandates that government become the all-encompassing thought police.

The more laws you have in place, especially subjective or vaguely defined ones, the more reliance you have to put on the good judgement and incorruptibility of those with the power to enforce those laws - i.e. the police. The danger is that those in positions of authority use their increased power for personal gain or to push their own political agenda.

There have been two cases recently of people being barred entry from the UK for their political beliefs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035

This is only reasonable you might say - they are extremists after all you might say. However, the policy of barring those with extreme views is not being applied consistently (to say the least..)