Filling in the Blanks, the Galop report which focuses on LGBT hate crime in London

10/10
January 2010
MPA briefing paper 10/2010

Author: Bennett Obong, Hate Crime Policy Officer, MPA

This briefing paper has been prepared to inform members and staff. It is not a committee report and no decisions are required.

Introduction

1. Filling in the Blanks is a landmark investigation into homophobic and transphobic hate crime in London. The research aimed to increase our understanding about the nature of homophobic and transphobic hate crime, and about the options for victims to report their experiences and get the support they may need.

2. The research, funded by the City Parochial Foundation, the Metropolitan Police Service and the Metropolitan Police Authority, was undertaken by Galop in partnership with Stonewall Housing and London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard.

3. The report focused on issues for homophobic and transphobic people and their experience of hate crime.

Summary

1. The aim of the research was to find out what kind of services were available for victims of homophobic and transphobic hate crime in London. A range of methods were used, including internet searches and phone surveys, to get a broad picture of the range of services and how they work. The full chapter on the mapping exercise gives details of the types of third party reporting schemes which exist, and some of the challenges faced in trying to ensure they are effective.
2. It is clear from the mapping exercise that a significant proportion of otherwise unreported homophobic and transphobic hate incidents are either informally ‘told’ or more formally reported to a range of agencies and organisations across London. However, in the majority of cases, these agencies do not have a system for recording this information – leading to a wealth of missing date and an inhibited understanding of homophobia and transphobia. Even where information is recorded, it tends to be retained by the individual organisation, with no shared recording systems and no method for wider dissemination.
3. The mapping exercise also identified a lack of shared language and terminology relating to both hate crimes, and methods of reporting. This further inhibits shared understanding and action.
4. The research identified some good practice in individual London boroughs, and highlighted the fact that despite a lack of tools and guidance, many local authorities, police boroughs and voluntary sector organisations have sought to be proactive in combating LGBT hate crime. However, although committed to action, there were a number of challenges to overcome, including:
   • No consistency or standardisation of third party reporting services across London, with no minimum standards in existence.
   • No evidence base identifying what makes an effective hate crime initiative. There appeared to be little guidance for organisations funding or providing a LGBT third party reporting service to show what initiatives are likely to increase reporting and provide help to victims.
   • Inconsistent involvement of the MPS, or of LGBT police liaison officers in third party reporting initiatives locally.

What the research found

1. The research found no overall strategy on increasing reporting and providing third party reporting options in London. As a result of this and the challenges outlined above, there appears to have been a proliferation of initiatives across London, most of which were funded to work within a single borough or area. This has led to an uneven and inconsistent approach to encouraging the reporting of hate crime across London, with some boroughs having more than one reporting initiative, and others with none. Many schemes have proved ineffective, often because of a range of issues which, in addition to those outlined above, include:

• Inherent problems with a borough based approach which doesn’t always reflect the reality of LGBT people’s lives.
• Little sustainability for schemes because of a lack of long term funding commitments.
• Unrealistically low funding which didn’t include resources for training and relied on volunteers and under-resourced voluntary sector partners to deliver services.

2. There has been no effective evaluation of the delivery and performance of third party reporting services across the capital. Some respondents to the mapping exercise also questioned the effectiveness of True Vision, which has also not been evaluated.

3. The research also found that victims and organisations providing victims with support often encountered problems in contacting the police for example out of date information on websites, phone numbers that don’t work, and no central place listing reporting options. Emphasis appeared to be focused on increasing the numbers of incidents reported, rather than focusing on outcomes sought by victims and ensuring that reports are properly followed up.

A few specifics of the research

There are a number of similar patterns discernable in the cases reported to the MPS and LGBT organisations; however there are also some important differences which highlight areas where people are less likely to seek help from the police instead approaching LGBT organisations for support and alternative outcomes. It is clear that LGBT organisations play a vital role in providing alternative routes for reporting experiences, and getting appropriate advice and support, and that without these services some victims would simply not report at all.

The data reveals that gay and bisexual men were most likely to report hate incidents, to both LGBT organisations and the MPS.

• About three quarters of all reports made to LGBT organisations were from men, and about four fifths of reports made to the MPS were from men.

A higher proportion of men reported violence, and a higher proportion of women reported sexual assault.

• Three in ten reports to LGBT organisations from men involved violent incidents, compared to two in ten reports from women

Higher proportions of Trans people reported verbal abuse and repeat harassment.

• Almost six out of ten reports to LGBT organisations from Trans people involved verbal abuse and/ or repeat harassment, compared with just over three out of ten of reports from non-trans people.

Both younger (18 and under) and older (over 50) LGBT people appear less likely to contact either LGBT organisations or the MPS about incidents. BME LGBT victims of homophobic or transphobic incidents appear more likely to be the victim of an incident in or near their home.

• This occurred in three quarters of incidents, compared to half of incidents targeted at white victims.

A significant percentage of victims contacting LGBT organisations were living with a disability. Those with mental health issues might be particularly vulnerable, and this underlines the importance of inclusive mental health and counselling services for LGBT people.

• More than a quarter of all clients contacting LGBT organisations were living with a disability, and more than three in ten of these clients had mental health difficulties.

In general verbal abuse and threats were the most commonly reported type of hate crime, followed by physical violence. There was also a range of other incidents which were also homophobic or transphobic in nature, including sexual violence, domestic abuse and damage to property.

• More than three in ten incidents reported included some form of verbal abuse or threats.
• Over a quarter of all incidents involved physical violence.
• Nearly one in ten incidents involved domestic abuse.

The MPS appear to be more likely to be contacted by victims who were attacked in public areas but less likely to be contacted about incidents occurring in/near the home. It appears that victims are more likely therefore to approach an LGBT organisation to report domestic abuse or ongoing harassment.

More incidents were recorded as taking place in inner London boroughs compared to outer London boroughs and incidents occurred at all times of the day/week/month, not just at night or during the weekend.

Victims contacting organisations about an incident appeared more likely to know the perpetrators(s) than for the perpetrator to be a stranger, which is likely to be because the majority of attacks took place in or near the home.

Data on the London picture

There are ways of using national data, such as Sigma’s 2002 survey of gay and bisexual men, to look at homophobic hate crime specifically in London (Hickson, et al, 2002). The total number of respondents in the above Sigma study within London was 4233. If we take the number of respondents as indicative of the gay/bisexual community and apply the results to the estimated number of LGB people living in London, then the following is revealed.

• 25% stated they had been discriminated against by a stranger in public - representing 125,000 incidents of discrimination in one year within London.
• 31% stated they had been verbally abused because of their sexuality – representing 160,000 incidents of verbal abuse in one year within London.
• 5.9% stated they had been physically attacked because of their sexuality – representing 29,500 incidents of physical abuse in one year within London.

When looking at victims of homophobic and transphobic incidents, the data reveals that

• A larger percentage of women contacted LGBT organisations about verbal abuse/threats whereas a larger percentage of men contacted LGBT organisations about physical violence.22
• One in ten female victims contacted an LGBT organisation about a sexual assault or abuse compared to one in twenty male victims.
• One in ten males contacted LGBT organisations after experiencing specific problems with the police, with the majority of cases concerning cottaging and cruising.
• Two thirds of women contacted LGBT organisations about incidents experienced in/near to their home compared to over half of men.23
• Men were more likely than women to contact LGBT organisations about incidents taking place in public settings, such as the street (21% compared to 16%).
• Around one in ten of men contacted an LGBT organisation about an incident that took place in a public sex environment.

When looking at differences in experience by gender identity, the data reveals that Trans people were twice as likely to contact LGBT organisations about verbal abuse or threats compared to non-trans people, though Trans people were less likely to report incidents involving violence compared to non-trans people.

• Trans people were more likely to contact LGBT organisations about repeated harassment. Nearly three-quarters of Trans victims experienced repeated transphobic/homophobic harassment compared to over half of non-trans victims.

When looking at age of victims of homophobic and transphobic incidents, the data reveals that Adults between 21 and 50 are most likely to contact LGBT organisations or the MPS and account for over three-quarters of all cases recorded.

• There were significantly fewer cases from younger and older people. The under 21s and the over 50s each represented around one in ten cases.
• LGBT people under 21 who first contacted LGBT organisations to get help were half as likely to have reported to the police compared to the over 20s.

When looking at Age of victims of homophobic/transphobic incidents by LGBT organisation, the data reveals that Stonewall Housing had a much younger client group, with almost one in four victims first contacting them being under 21 compared to one in twenty reporting to Galop’s and just over one in ten to LLGS.

• Over one in ten victims first contacting Galop were over 50, compared to one in twenty reporting to LLGS and less than one in twenty to Stonewall Housing.
• The largest proportion of older victims who contacted Galop sought help with homophobic incidents and legal advice.

When looking at Ethnicity of victims – LGBT organisations and MPS data, the data reveals that The ethnic identity of victims of homophobic/transphobic hate crime contacting LGBT organisations and the MPS is comparable to the ethnic population of London according to the 2001 Census. However, LGBT victims identifying as Asian appear to be underrepresented.26

• Over three-quarters of all incidents reported by BME people reported took place in/near their home compared to just over half of all white victims.
• Three-quarters of BME victims also reported repeated attacks compared to just over half of white victims.

When looking at disability of victims – LGBT organisations, the data reveals that Over a third of clients with a disability experienced mental health issues or had developed feelings of anxiety or depression as a direct result of an incident.

• One in five disclosed they were living with HIV/AIDS and had experienced hate crime because of their sexuality or HIV/AIDS status.
• LGBT people living with a disability experience high levels of repeat incidents in/near their homes (65% compared to 57% of those without a disability).

Nature of incidents

Nature of incidents recorded by LGBT organisations and the MPS, data reveals that nearly one in three incidents recorded by LGBT organisations involved verbal abuse or threats.

• One in twenty cases involved written abuse or threats, including letters, notes, graffiti and messages sent via electronic media such as texts and emails.
• Nearly two in three incidents of verbal and written abuse or threats were repeat incidents.
• Over three in five incidents of verbal abuse took place in or near to victims’ homes. Nearly two in five incidents took place in public settings, with almost two thirds of these public incidents taking place on the street.
• Two fifths of recorded incidents took place during the day and three fifths of incidents took place in the evening or at night.
• Over half of victims of verbal/written abuse who contacted an LGBT organisation were reporting the incident for the first time. Just over a quarter of incidents recorded by LGBT organisations had already been reported to the police.

When looking at Violence reported to LGBT organisations, the data reveals that over a quarter of incidents involved actual or attempted physical assault as the primary motive. Violence or attempted violence was also a feature of over a tenth of additional incidents, where the primary motive was robbery or sexual assault.

• Over half of violent incidents were part of repeat attacks and happened in or near to victims’ homes.
• Physical attacks that took place in public/semi public locations were most likely to take place on the street or public sex environments.
• Incidents involving violence appeared more likely to take place during the evening or late at night. However, over one in ten incidents involving violence took place during the day time.
• Over a third of victims of violence who contacted an LGBT organisation were reporting the incident for the first time. Half of all victims had already reported the incident to the police but had subsequently gone on to contact an LGBT organisation. This was either because they needed other sorts of help/advice, such as housing, or they were dissatisfied with the police response after reporting to them.

When looking at Violence reported to the MPS, the data reveals that Half of the violent incidents involved the offence of actual bodily harm.

• More than one in three involved common assault.
• Just over one in twenty involved grievous bodily harm.
• Just over one in twenty involved the offence category ‘other violence’.
• Less than one in a hundred (0.7%) involved murder.

When looking at Type of domestic abuse involving partner or ex-partner reported to LGBT organisations around two in five victims first contacted an LGBT organisation about the domestic abuse and just over two in five first contacted the police.

• More than nine out of ten cases of domestic abuse/violence from current or ex-partners took place in or near to the victims’ home.

Over three in five of victims of domestic abuse were male and just under two fifths were female.

• Over three in four abusers were male, with fewer than one in five female.

When looking at type of domestic abuse involving perpetrators from the same household as the victim (LGBT organisations) nearly three fifths of victims of domestic violence contacting an LGBT organisation were reporting the incident for the first time, with most (four fifths) first reporting to Stonewall Housing to get help/advice.

• Victims who were from the same household/family as the perpetrator were half as likely to have contacted the police about the incident as victims who did not live in the same household/family.
• Only three percent of victims of domestic abuse from members of the same household or family made a third party report.
• Almost two out of three of victims were male, just under a third were female.
• Nearly half of all abusers were male, with less than one in five female.

When looking at sexual assault and abuse (LGBT organisations) two out of three victims who contacted LGBT organisations had not contacted the police.

• Three out of five victims who first contacted an LGBT organisation were reporting the incident for the first time.
• Less than one in five sexual assaults reported to LGBT organisations resulted in a third party report, since most victims only wanted advice and support.
• Over half of sexual assaults/abuse occurred in or near to the victim’s home, nearly a quarter occurred in the street/public location and nearly a fifth of incidents occurred in an LGBT venue.
• Two out of three victims were male; nearly one in three was female.
• One in four victims was under 21 years old.
• Nearly nine out of ten perpetrators were male.
• Almost two in three victims knew or were familiar with the perpetrator. One in four was a partner/ ex-partner of the victim and nearly one in four came from the same household as the victim.

Theft/robbery, damage to property and blackmail

LGBT people are sometimes deliberately targeted by perpetrators committing theft or robbery. For example one in three robberies took place at a public sex environment or in/near to an LGBT venue. Similarly attempts were made to blackmail victims, who were not out to family, friends or colleagues.

• Thefts, robbery, and damage to property were often one part of a homophobic/transphobic attack and 15% of all cases recorded by LGBT organisations involved either damage to property, theft, robbery or blackmail.
• Over four in five incidents involving damage to property took place in/near to victims’ homes.

How often, where and when incidents occurred

• Over four fifths of repeat incidents occurred in or nearby the home of the victim.
• Conversely, three quarters of single incidents occurred in public/semi-public settings.

Location of incidents

Nearly three in five incidents recorded by LGBT organisations took place in/near the victim’s home compared to less than two in five recorded by the MPS.

• Half of all incidents recorded by MPS took place in public or semi-public areas, such as the street, shops or public transport, compared to one in five incidents recorded by LGBT organisations.
• Nearly one in ten incidents recorded by LGBT organisations took place in public sex environments (PSE’s). A significant number of these cases were men who had problems with the police or others following allegations of sexual offences. However, there were a number of incidents that involved assault or robbery in PSE’s that had not been reported to the police because victims or witnesses were reluctant to disclose that they were cottaging or cruising.
• Just over one in twenty incidents took place in the workplace. Only one in a hundred cases took place in schools or colleges.
• Three in five incidents involving verbal abuse recorded by LGBT organisations took place in/near the home compared to less than two in five taking place in public areas.
• Nearly half of violent incidents recorded by LGBT organisations took place in the street or other public/semi public areas, including one in five taking place in/outside LGBT venues or PSEs.

The borough of the incident took place in (LGBT organisations) just over one in five incidents reported to LGBT organisations took place outside London.

• Most inner London boroughs had higher numbers of incidents. Ten percent of incidents reported in London occurred in Westminster, with eight other boroughs having between a four percent and nine percent share of the total number of incidents for London.
• Significantly fewer reports were made from the outer London boroughs, with most accounting for two percent or less of the total number of incidents reported.
• More victims of reported LGBT hate crime lived in inner London boroughs.
• Homophobic/transphobic incidents appear to mainly take place in the same borough in which the victim lived.

Day of the week incident occurred – LGBT and MPS data

Over half of all incidents recorded by LGBT organisations were repeat incidents occurring over several days, weeks or months.

• Data from both LGBT organisations and the MPS suggest that incidents occurred evenly across the week with even little variation between each day, though slightly more incidents occurred on a Saturday.
• Single incidents appeared much more likely to take place during the weekend: For example, a quarter of all single incidents reported to LGBT organisations took place on a Saturday.

Time of the day incident occurred – LGBT and MPS data

Homophobic/transphobic incidents took place throughout the day, rather than only at night.

• LGBT organisations recorded more incidents that took place late at night, with nearly one in three taking place between 21.01 and 00.00 hours. More incidents were recorded by the MPS during the early hours, particularly between 00.01 and 3.00.
• There was some relationship between time and location of incident. Unsurprisingly, nine out of ten incidents taking place at LGBT venues happened during the evening or late at night/ early hours. Three in five incidents in/near home took place during the evening or late at night when both victim and perpetrator were likely to be at home. However, incidents that occurred in the street were equally as likely to happen in the afternoon or evening.
  Perpetrators of homophobia/transphobia

The victim either knew or was familiar with the perpetrator of the homophobic/transphobic incident in around two out of three cases recorded by LGBT organisations or the MPS.

• Around three in four perpetrators of single incidents were strangers to the victim.

Identity of the perpetrator (excluding strangers)

Excluding strangers who could not be identified the largest proportion of perpetrators were neighbours or people who lived near to the victim, such as groups of youths in the same street or area.

• LGBT organisations recorded a higher percentage of cases where the perpetrator was identified as being part of the same family/household as the victim or was a partner or ex- partner.
• LGBT people also encountered perpetrators of homophobic/transphobic incidents while going about their daily lives, from people providing or receiving goods and services and work/school colleagues.
• Over one in twenty victims contacting LGBT organisations identified a police officer as the perpetrator of an incident. Three in four of these cases were people who had been warned, cautioned or arrested by the police.
• Just under a third of perpetrators were strangers/unknown to the victim incidents, a similar figure to incidents reported to LGBT organisations.
• Nearly half of all perpetrators were neighbours or living locally to the victim.
• Only a small number of perpetrators in cases reported to the MPS were members of the same household.

Gender of the perpetrators

Data from both the MPS and LGBT organisations show similar percentages of male and female perpetrators, with women far less likely to be perpetrators of homophobic/transphobic incidents.

• Data from LGBT organisations suggested that male victims were much more likely to be attacked by male perpetrators - over four out of five incidents perpetrated against males were carried out by other males and less than one in ten perpetrated by females.
• Just under half of incidents perpetrated against female victims were carried out by males, and one in three was perpetrated by females.
• Three out of four incidents involving violence were perpetrated by males, compared to just over one in ten by females.

Ethnic appearance or identity of perpetrators

The recorded ethnic identity of the perpetrator often relied on the description given by the victim to either the MPS or an LGBT organisation.

Perpetrators of homophobic/transphobic incidents where identified from a range of ethnic backgrounds. The majority of perpetrators (including suspects and accused) were white in ethnic appearance, though the percentage of perpetrators identified as black appears higher in proportion to London’s black population as a whole. It is worth noting however that this overrepresentation reflects a similar trend outlined in the House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee, which reported that a range of criminal justice system factors play an important role in promoting overrepresentation (Home Affairs Committee, 2007).

It should also be noted that four out of five BME victims identified the perpetrator as BME. This figure might be accounted for because three out of four BME victims who contacted LGBT organisations (particularly Stonewall Housing) sought help with incidents perpetrated by members of the same household.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback