It’s not a hate crime to talk about migration

IN an innocuous speech to the Conservative Party conference last year, Home Secretary Amber Rudd praised migrants for enhancing our economy, society and culture, and pledged to cut migration and deport foreign criminals. The only controversy was caused by Labour politicians seizing upon one proposal, that firms reveal how many foreign workers they employ – an idea previously put forward by Ed Miliband – to falsely accuse her of racism.

Now we learn that, following a complaint from an Oxford University physics professor, Joshua Silver – who admits he didn’t see the speech – West Midlands Police deemed it worthy of investigation as a possible hate crime.

It has now been labelled a ‘hate incident’ under guidelines (endorsed by Miss Rudd) which say it must be recorded as such if an allegation is made, even if there is no evidence of prejudice.

The Mail deplores any abuse of minorities. Real hate crimes deserve relentless investigation, and their perpetrators the most draconian punishments.

But isn’t the obvious danger that by labelling as ‘hate incidents’ things that clearly aren’t, we risk undermining the importance of genuine complaints?

Indeed, doesn’t this episode fuel the suspicion that the scale and seriousness of so-called hate crimes reported last year were exaggerated by opponents of Brexit?

Miss Rudd must now tear up these rules, and tackle the political correctness which has warped the police’s priorities.

When half of all recorded crimes – 1.9million a year – go unsolved, haven’t officers got better things to do?