It’s mad to record petty problems as crime, says police chief

Imnobody4
Malicious communications on line. Take a DV case where one ex-partner is sending abusive messages to the other.

Who decides if the abusive messages are causing the victim harassment? Or do we say its freedom of expression?

Like is say - I receive loads of abusive death threats over the phone aimed at me and my family which i ignore. Other people might not be able to ignore them and want action taken against the poster - especially if its an ex-partner.

Do we crime these and investigate or not?

Pixiedust1234
Which post don't you understand and I'll explain them.

To 'crime' something means that the police acknowledge that what ever report is made to them is a crime and needs pursuing as such.

That perusal may range from a full investigation to no further action - the police response is not related to whether an incident is 'crimed' or not.

TheClogLady
A couple of tweets about a niche public figure (not even tweeted AT them, just out into the ether) and a repeated pattern of harrasment (eg multiple unwanted phone calls/text messages/emails over several hours/days/weeks) by someone’s ex partner aren’t remotely alike (even if you really, really want to record them using the same code).

I agree - there is a huge range. 2 tweets might be enough for one victim to say they are harassed - and maybe the police could write that off at source and not class it as a crime and just take the flack if the reporting person complains.

But there is a huge amount of cases that fall between your two examples which causes a huge 'grey area' for criming standards.

And do we crime it at the start of the investigation or at the end once its been to court?

I expect you’ll have to do a bit of ‘decriming’ when the judiciary once again roll their eyes at the nonsense the police and CPS are bringing into their court rooms.

A couple of tweets about a niche public figure (not even tweeted AT them, just out into the ether) and a repeated pattern of harrasment (eg multiple unwanted phone calls/text messages/emails over several hours/days/weeks) by someone’s ex partner aren’t remotely alike (even if you really, really want to record them using the same code).

It doesn't help using 'crime' as a verb and a noun.

Your posts really aren't coming across that well, indeed most appear incomprehensible. I asked several people to see if they could explain what you meant on this thread. None actually could.

"It seems to have been written by someone whose first language is bollocks"
"Specifically the gibberish dialect of bollocks" seems to be the general consensus.

If you really are a police officer who deals with the general public I suggest you look at your communication style. Its awful.

Felix125

We are talking about malicious communication on line. There have been enough cases thrown out by the courts now to give a clear picture of what is not harassment - Harry Miller, the Flag case etc,
etc Are you aware of all these cases?

You are completely ignoring the duty of police to uphold freedom of expression. They have been repeatedly told not to police Twitter spats and get on with real crime. The College of Policing has been told to review it's guidance.

It would be perfectly possible for someone to claim an accuser was harrassing them in order to silence their freedom of speech, it's become ridiculous because the police are favouring one particular group and ignoring other people's rights.

So would this be the same for DV harassment cases - where on ex-partner is harassing the other.

Who makes the judgement there to say if its harassment or not?
Someone competent and of sound mind - like a crime registrar? Most forces have these

And do we crime it at the start of the investigation or at the end once its been to court?

So at one point does the crime recording system not work?

When a political group, such as trans rights activists, encourage others to make reports about anything and everything that they imagine might be seen as possibly offensive, assuming the force is wearing it’s rainbow glasses so they can’t see straight. That’s when you get false statistics, showing a huge rise in hate crime, because someone decided that pointing out their sex was harrassment.

And who should judge what is a crime and what isn't

Someone competent and of sound mind, who is not politically motivated in one direction or other and can make those decisions without fear or favour.

Or who is harassed and who isn't?

Someone competent and of sound mind, who is not politically motivated in one direction or other and can make those decisions without fear or favour.

I realise there are problems with this approach, but it’s better than a blank assumption that everyone who makes a claim is inevitably right, when it’s becoming obvious that privilege is being abused by those who want to abuse others.

PriOn1
It’s not a crime unless law breaking has occurred. If the police class anything else as crime, then something is far wrong with their definition.

So when do you record the crime? At the end of the investigation by police or when it has gone to court and the suspect is found guilty?

If they are found not guilty, do we not record the crime?
The assume that the crime has not happened in the first place?

Pixiedust1234
Is the 'time stamp' of when it arrived or when it was posted?
Were the posts sent via a computer or a mobile phone - so she could have been at church and posted it using her mobile
Were there a series of posts at differing dates & times
What did the reporting person report?

Imnobody4
The current systems has huge grey areas in it I agree - especially with harassment. Who decides what is harassing or not - the victim, the police, an independent person? At what point do you crime the harassment? If a further accusation of harassment is reported the next day is it added to the first crime of harassment or recorded as a separate one? The list goes on......

As its stands under NCRS, if you have a victim confirmation of a crime and there is no credible evidence against it, its crimed

Drink drive is not a crime, its an offence but not classed as a crime. But you don't necessarily need a victim for it to be a crime - state based offences such as affray don't need an identified victim as such

PriOn1
Nope, the person you are calling a victim is a vexatious claimant....
And where is the credible evidence to support this for it not to be a crime - at the time of reporting? It may be proven after an investigation that it was a malicious report and the crime cancelled - but at the time of reporting you will need something credible to show it hasn't happened. So, accusing someone who is actually dead for example (we had lots of claims against Jimmy Saville committing offence after he had died)

You can't just simply ask the suspect if they have done it or not to gauge if a crime should be recorded? If a victim of DV assault states she was assaulted by her boyfriend - but when police call him the same day, he states its not true as he was with his mates at the time and they will back him up - do we not record the crime of assault?

So at one point does the crime recording system not work?
And who should judge what is a crime and what isn't
Or who is harassed and who isn't?

Bare in mind that the police investigation can range from - no further action at source to a full investigation using CID and similar - but that's the investigation part, not the crime recording part.

IcakethereforeIam
If the allegation is a crime in law and there is no credible evidence against it - then it is recorded as a crime.

TastefulRainbowUnicorn
Yes - i work with victims/survivors of rape and also with various support organisations. Most victims/survivors want to put themselves first and move at their own pace - and rightly so. They want to approach some sort of closure so that they can attempt to move forwards in their life. Some want a prosecution and will do anything & everything to achieve it - but from my experience (22 years) most don't care about the suspect or what happens to them as they are the least thing on their mind. They are happy that they have been arrested & interviewed and that their report of rape has been taken seriously - but most do not want to re-live the whole thing again and argue with the suspect at court 6 months down the line. And I have never had one single compliant of lack of police action or failing to put the victim/survivors first or a similar complaint - in fact, its quite the opposite feedback i get from victims/survivors - so i must be doing something right for them.

Like I say 22 years experience of working with victims/survivors - what do you base your knowledge on?

There's a difference, I would have thought, between making an allegation and reporting a crime.

Exactly this. Many people try to weaponise the agency I work for against people they have other disputes with, or don’t like, for whatever reason. I’d go so far as to say that as many as 50% probably fall into that category and many more are misjudgements on the part of the complainant. Probably less than ten percent of my cases result in the finding of law breaking. It’s not a crime unless law breaking has occurred. If the police class anything else as crime, then something is far wrong with their definition.

A reminder that this person with his nuanced and compassionate take on rape victims says he's a police officer.

I was thinking, as I typed my post, about the fact that this is the result when you remove agency from (for example) teachers and the police. When you create blanket rules and nobody has any discretion to think and make judgements, then those who remain will include many who just don’t give a shit and you lose many, decent people, who can’t work within a system that they can see is corrupt and straightforwardly doesn’t work.

Most rape victims/survivors don't want to go through the court process and don't really care what happens to the suspect - they just want to put themselves first.

Wow. They don't really care what happens to the suspect? They just want to put themselves first?

Or they don't have any trust in the police, the courts and the CPS to deliver justice and they decide there's no point in putting themselves through it for a tiny possibility of achieving justice?

A reminder that this person with his nuanced and compassionate take on rape victims says he's a police officer.

There's a difference, I would have thought, between making an allegation and reporting a crime.

There is a victim - as you have a person who contacts police to say they are a victim and details what has occurred. If those details meet the threshold for a crime, then a crime is recorded under NCRS

Nope, the person you are calling a victim is a vexatious claimant. If the police really no longer have any recourse to plain old common sense when it comes to such claims, then what is the point of them? No wonder the public are losing all faith.

I work for a different type of government agency (not in the UK). We have vexatious claims made all the time. Part of my job is to assess whether those claims have any validity.

If you take the word of everyone who reports, then you are creating an entirely false picture and you are failing to do the job you are paid to do..

Felix125
Do you agree with the current system? The point that is being made is that trivial incidents being recorded as crimes gives a misleading picture of the prevalence of such crimes particularly in the area of hate crime.

For NCRS purposes only crimes with a victim are recorded which is why drink driving does not appear it is still a crime.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/counting-rules-for-recorded-crime

2.2 An incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) for ‘victim related offences’ if, on the balance of probability:
(a) the circumstances of the victims report amount to a crime defined by law (the police will
determine this, based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules); and
(b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary immediately available.
2.3 A belief by the victim, or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim, (explained further at 3.6 ii), that a crime has occurred is usually sufficient to justify its recording.

I'm confused. What happened to alibis?

The police could see the date/time stamp on the "offensive" post. She said she was in church. There's a whole church full of people who could confirm her whereabouts at that date/time. There was absolutely no need for the arrest! Geeze.

Given that he mentioned NCRS then I guess he is referring to recordable crimes. From what I can tell though, NCRS has been superseded by HOCR. Perhaps Felix could confirm that?

I think there's a clash between common usage of terms and the precise technical meaning that might be used within policing. Of course drink driving is a crime, in that it's legislated against and if you're convicted of it you will suffer various penalties. That's what the general public would call a crime. The fact that it wouldn't be "crimed" by the police doesn't change the public understanding of it as a crime.

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm curious about a distinction Felix125 made between offences, such as drink driving, which are classified as non-crimes, and those, such as harassment, which are classified as crimes.

I can't find any information about this distinction, though I have learned that offences are classified as recordable or not, imprisonable or not, and by whether they are triable by magistrates (summary offences), judge and jury (indictable offences), or either way. For example, drink driving is a recordable, imprisionable, summary offence, whereas harassment is recordable, imprisionable and triable either way.

Can anyone point to a source that explains the crime/non-crime distinction?

Imnobody4
Unless you have been burgled and nothing has been taken - then you will have no details of anything taken. For example, you come down stairs to find an unknown person in your house eyeing up things - sees you and runs off. If you phone in, it will still be crimed as burglary based on your account.

Being offended is not a crime, but being harassed is. So receiving Tweets etc that you find harassing will be a crime, as you have a victim confirmation that its is harassing them.

How that is investigated is a different matter - from 'written off at source' to arrest & prosecution. But the offence will still be crimed under NCRS rules.

What would the test for harassment be?

As I say, receiving death threats directed at me isn't an issue. I get loads daily, but it doesn't bother me, so nothing is crimed as I am not harassed by it. But other people will be harassed by it and want it crimed.

Where do you draw the line?

PriOn1
There is a victim - as you have a person who contacts police to say they are a victim and details what has occurred. If those details meet the threshold for a crime, then a crime is recorded under NCRS

Felix125
Surely a complaint has to have details. If I report a burglary surely I have to give details, what was stolen, where from.
At the point of a complaint of malicious communication the police will be told what was said and issues around freedom of speech should also kick in. Being offended is not evidence a crime has been committed. Someone tweeting something you don't like is not a crime.

The point is the guidelines are being misinterpreted or need more clarity. That law should not be used as a tool for harassment.

He can more or less say what he likes now. He retires next month

Actually, scrap that. I was wrong when I said there was no victim. Caroline is a victim. The police are committing a criminal act in arresting her. I hope they will be brought to justice eventually.

Would the victim have cause to say the police failed to investigate?

There is no victim. Only a man who is intent on harrassing many women and continually uses the police to do so.

There’s something going very wrong in the UK at the moment.

What crime was she arrested for? Harassment, Mal comms?

So, what if her tech was examined and contained all the evidence needed to prove the offence? - Do we just ignore that.
Would the victim have cause to say the police failed to investigate?