The police

There is crime, and there is gross misconduct. The latter need not be the former for employers to take action.

Believerinbiology
No - but if one is reported to police by someone, it will be looked at to see if its a crime - so is the messages grossly offensive or indecent - so that would be mal comms

Or are the reported tweets etc not a crime but fall into a NCHI category

Or are the tweets just opinions -so the job gets binned off at source.

Police don't just go around to workplaces examining every misconduct. But if someone at that workplace reports something to police, it will be looked into as above.

i suggest most will get binned off by the call takers - but it depends what the messages are

Oh, wow. That is bloody excellent!

Now wondering how Scotland will find a way to ignore this advice under the new Hate Crime Bill ...

TastefulRainbowUnicorn
The incident is still recorded - its just not recorded as a crime.
Its still an incident reported to police, its just not crimed
Its recorded as a NCHI and closed
But the record still exists.

What they are now being told is to stop recording NCHI at all

So Whatsapp groups can flourish unrecorded so long as they don't fall into a crime categaory

Think my tongue is bleeding from biting it so hard. You know damn well it's not the same or are you saying the police record and investigate every incidence of workplace misconduct, anywhere?
What exactly is your agenda except for trying to antagonize women and distract from their concerns? I sincerely hope you are not a member of the police and that the only place you get to peacock and try to feel superior is here.

Imnobody4
Mal cooms - the message has to be 'indecent or grossly offensive.'

Can you not see the grey area it creates. Is a swastika grossly offensive?
Can it be grossly offensive to some people?

So, at that point what does the call taker do - are they in a position to tell the reporting person that in the call taker's opinion, its not offensive and you should not be getting stressed over it - goodbye and end the call?

No - its the same - non crime hate incidents will not be recorded.
So officers involved in such Whatsapp groups outside of work will not be recorded if they are flagged up by police

You’re confused, or perhaps deliberately attempting to mislead. They already aren’t recorded! Certainly not as non crime hate incidents because misogyny doesn’t officially count as hate.

No - its the same - non crime hate incidents will not be recorded.
So officers involved in such Whatsapp groups outside of work will not be recorded if they are flagged up by people

Felix knows this but has his own agenda. Oh, look a squirrel.

Felix125
These are 2 completely separate issues. Supervision of police conduct has nothing to do with NCHIs.

That's great news.
But in the interests of eternal vigilance, Harry said at one point the police were starting to use malicious communications - Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety. (UK Public General Acts1988 c. 27 Section 1) to intimidate and harass people as in the flag meme.

We need to keep the pressure up to make the police accountable when they harass people for exercising their freedom of speech.

This is my argument - that intelligence on serving officers should be used against them. So, posts on Whatsapp groups like this.

For example - if officers have created a Whatsapp group which is misogynistic in its content, this should be used against them and they should be dismissed.

If they are now not going to record such incidents, then this can go unchecked, in theory, as they have done nothing wrong by posting in the group.

And I agree - it goes against the standards of conduct - but in theory, nothing will get recorded against them so it will go unchecked.

But, Whatsapp groups like the ones Couzens cronies were involved with can go unrestricted then in theory?

Has there been one single example ever of a man having a NCHI recorded against him for participating in a misogynistic group chat? How could there be, when crimes motivated by hatred of women aren’t counted as hate crimes?

What is the point in even mentioning this red herring?

Surely that would be an HR issue? The police will.have standards of conduct.

Great - less work for us

But, Whatsapp groups like the ones Couzens cronies were involved with can go unrestricted then in theory? So long as no crime occurs within them.

Imnobody4
This is where its a grey area in policing. Please don't see this as me defending anyone or talking down to people - I'm just putting another view point across.

Mal comms - Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive.
UK Public General Acts1988 c. 27 Section 1

So, does a swastika fall into the 'grossly offensive' category?

If its was sent to say Simon Wiesenthal's family or Anne Frank's family for example, would it be seen as grossly offensive? Does it depend who its sent to or what it is that is being sent?

In this case - does the reporting person believe it was sent purposefully for them to see it. And if so, does it cause this person anxiety, alarm, distress?

If the reporting person says they believe it does - then you have the offence of mal comms made out in theory, based on the above definition. Has the reporting person said anything else on the call - perhaps maliciously - 'they have sent me a load of other grossly offensive things too in the past'

So, at that point what does the call taker do - are they in a position to tell the reporting person that in the call taker's opinion, its not offensive and you should not be getting stressed over it - goodbye and end the call.

Or would they see it as an offence of mal comms is made out on the call, so it will need investigating further?

Or, do we judge the reporting person is a proven liar by the number of previous calls, their past criminal record, or their past number of reports that have not resulted in a prosecution. Or do we take it on a case-by-case basis?

For what its worth - if that had been dispatched to me - I would have tried to conclude this with words of advice only to the reporting person, that its a free world and everyone can have a voice etc etc.

Even if there was something more to it and i visited the potential suspect - there would be no need to arrest and i would have gone along the lines of a voluntary interview at his home address. If he refused the voluntary interview, you can proceed with out it if need be, no arrest required.

As stillvicarinatutu has said, there are lots of staff who are not as experienced as others - and whilst they have powers in law to do what they did - you sometimes have to think that there are a number of different ways to deal with things that are a lot easier for everyone concerned.

Not sure if everyone saw this from yesterday?

"Policing Minister has tonight confirmed that Chief Constables have been ordered to stop recording NCHIs following Miller v College of Policing. That is what you call effective activism. Well done everyone."

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1593354391536427008?t=UkYB4JAlDGH77_KxU75NFA&s=19

BWV has helped a lot with spurious complaints as your encounter with people is captured and can be re-played. So, your disgruntled complainant wanting to make a complaint of they way you dealt with them is all recorded.

Same in custody - so the box of missing matches can be traced or shown that it was nothing to do with the officer if they have gone missing.

I'm not sure the investigation of a missing box of 4 or 5 year old matches, half empty apparently, was worth a DI and DS investigating. In my experience every complain was taken seriously.

Things have changed. Police don't have the respect they used to and I would wager back in the day if a complaint was made it would be something to investigate.

Now people complain because they're issue is t a crime . They think complaining will
Change that . One of my colleagues lives has been totally ruined by a malicious spurious complaint and he's been totally exonerated but he spent 2 years suspended and says he will never come back . He was criminally investigated for something he did not do
And it's been proven to be a case of mistaken identity by a child with special needs . But his career lies in tatters . He will never ever trust the police again . And he was a bloody good Bobby . Complaints when warranted- absolutely. But things are very different now from the 70s 80s and 90s . In some ways better regulated.

Complaints held fear for everyone in my day.

Oh - and it has to be directed at a person .
So a generic tweet - with an opinion- would never ever stand up in court .

Well not unless it's grossly offensive, a threat , indecent or known to be untrue .

That's the definition of mal comms .

That's the crux of the issue - people going well I'm offended so it MUST be a crime .

Nah . It's not . Tweeting a meme ? Speaking your opinion? Not a crime . But I think some people have trouble accepting that .

I e had more complaints since being in control room than when I was on shift .

Now people think if they wail that it's not fair it will change an outcome .
Not if you've done the job correctly in the first place it won't .

I get sick of spurious complaints because I wi too as someone wants - that's because I look at the letter of the law and if no offence - I tell them . That they THINK it should be is fairly irrelevant. But the culture has changed and people do think if they complain they'll get they're own way .
Complaints hold no fear for me . It's usually a disgruntled complainant that didn't get what they wanted . I have the law on my side because I stick to it ! The letter of the law .
The number of times I've had to tell people that being insulted or offended isn't a criminal offence ......