Police interview Nicola Murray

[SunnyDelite]

I don't think this has been posted before?
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-interview-charity-chief-nicola-murray-after-tweet-ending-referrals-to-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-plwgxfjfv?fbclid=IwAR1cgMoH7Lup-Y30dFxgC0QDelhthJZQndMwPRg5HYnfVOUZ1wsMsabE7D4

I'm baffled as to why, if nothing happened

Yes. Two Times articles are zapped into oblivion and the “errors and omissions” says there was no Police Scotland investigation.

But does that mean “nothing happened”? I think police officers did go to Nicola Murray’s house, and I think they probably said what she said they said.

But does that mean “nothing happened”? I think police officers did go to Nicola Murray’s house, and I think they probably said what she said they said.

Is this like a case of the just a quiet word style of safeguarding measures advocated by some posters? You know, nothing official, not following set protocols, nothing to see.

Surely those who believe in ‘quiet word’ style safeguarding would be all for this type of police action too.

@Datun

If police officers are going round to peoples houses and “checking their thinking” when there hasn’t been a complaint and there isn’t an investigation then that’s a bigger story.

Exactly.

No complaint. No investigation. Just officers taking it upon themselves to knock on women's doors to check their thinking?

Two Times articles are zapped into oblivion and the “errors and omissions” says there was no Police Scotland investigation.

It's not just the Times. There was also an article in the Daily Mail which has also disappeared now.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10459203/Police-quiz-domestic-abuse-charity-boss-thought-crimes-cutting-ties-rape-centre.html

No complaint, no investigation.

Is there any other legitimate reason for a police officer to visit someone in their own home to ask questions?

No complaint. No investigation. Just officers taking it upon themselves to knock on women's doors to check their thinking?

There would have to be some official support for this just to get sign off for the mileage and subsistence claims. I'd also assume that the Police who did this were paid.

Just so I'm clear, do people suspect that political influence secured the visit to Nicola M's home in the absence of an official complaint or investigation?

Or are people suggesting that there was no such visit or conversation which is an inference some would draw from the unhelpfully worded Errors and Omissions?

If two police officers off their own bat used their police status to speak to someone without any policing reason then they should be sacked.

Just so I'm clear, do people suspect that political influence secured the visit to Nicola M's home in the absence of an official complaint or investigation?

I think the implication is that Nicola Murray made up the story. That seems unlikely to me, but who knows? Perhaps two police officers visited her off their own bat. Perhaps two trans activists posed as police officers and visited her.

If Nicola made up the story then surely the police response would be 'no police office has visited her' and it would be all over twitter how T* have made up stories about police visits. If they visited her out of concern for her safety or as a community bridge building exercise (over an hour away) then they surely would have said that. The only thing we can currently assume is police did visit her to discuss this.

I suppose there is another option that there is an investigation but she is a witness not a suspect? They might not want to reveal that?

The correction says "The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation", which is what Nicola alluded to in the article - she said the police officer said she wasn't being interviewed as a suspect or anything - that WAS the story.

Intrigued to see what has actually happened here - as PP have said, it suggests that the police visit was perhaps not legitimately carried out?

Intrigued to see what has actually happened here - as PP have said, it suggests that the police visit was perhaps not legitimately carried out?

Police Scotland needs to clarify the matter further.

I wonder if an FOI would be useful.

Is it possible it’s her charity and not Nicola herself that was the subject of the complaint? Or does “complaint” have a specific meaning in police land that doesn’t include every instance of a member of the public calling up to complain about something?

I think some kind of weasel wording like that is actually the most innocuous explanation. But it definitely doesn’t explain the articles being taken down.

Is it possible it’s her charity and not Nicola herself that was the subject of the complaint? Or does “complaint” have a specific meaning in police land that doesn’t include every instance of a member of the public calling up to complain about something?

I think it might do. The police are under a lot of scrutiny with regard to this non-crime hate incident stuff. The police used the word "report" in a previous statement. I think they're trying to emphasise the non-crime bit and make it sound innocuous.

But as you say, that doesn't answer any questions.

The story originally said
"The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’ When they brought out the screengrabs of the statement, I said, ‘Really?

“They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’

“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’"

It carefully said 'brought to our attention' not 'complained about'.
And clearly not subject of an investigation.
So nothing that contradicts the story at all, but I wonder why it was removed - perhaps the officer who didn't want to be quoted has threatened something? (Just speculating??)

I suppose there is another option that there is an investigation but she is a witness not a suspect? They might not want to reveal that?

But then who might they be investigating… oh!!!! Well, that would be one hell of a plot twist.

I think my speculations might get deleted if I shared them! Anyway, while it’s entertaining to think about, I don’t think plot twists like that happen in real life.

@Waitwhat23

I wonder if an FOI would be useful.

FOI specifically excludes personal data - so data relating to Nicola. But it might be able to ask about communication with the media.

@allmywhat

Screenshot of Wadhwa confirming they make a regular habit of running to the police about “hate.”

The Google cache of their deleted tweet is archived at archive dot is forwardslash hN5zy

Felt it might be important to preserve the evidence given the insinuations some are making.

Is this the tweet? Thank you for confirming that she did not in fact state that it was her who made the report about Murray. That appears to have been a complete invention.

@Helleofabore

I read MW’s tweet while it was active and Nicola Williams’ tweet and I don’t recall seeing MW state that they didn’t report it. I might have missed it as I have been busy. So, please link the tweet where MW denied they reported it.

Is that how it works now? You accuse someone of something and if they don't immediately publicy deny it you claim they are guilty of it?

Just to jog your memory here's what you said a couple of days ago.

They tweeted that they reported it a week or so ago. I will see if I can find a link

Do you stand by this claim?

@Waitwhat23

I'm baffled as to why, if nothing happened, Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie felt fit to be quoted as saying - "Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident." (for which he's received a fair bit of criticism as it shows his woeful understanding of the Equality Act).

Why didn't he just say 'this didn't happen' if it didn't?

And if the police are claiming there was no visit, it would be helpful if they could explicitly state that, rather than the less clear statement that there was no complaint or investigation, though the latter would absolutely imply no visit occurred.

Either Nicola is lying or the police. That I have no faith that it is the police telling the truth, as opposed to a woman I hadn’t heard of until a few days ago, is very distressing.

[quote MidsomerMurmurs]**@barleybadminton* I very much doubt The Times would have erased all references to this story and issued a correction if they had doubts the police were telling the truth*

But the “errors and omissions” piece does not address the points in the article that was withdrawn. It doesn’t say that no police officers went to Nicola Murray’s house.

That’s the story. If the whole thing is not true - no police officers visited Nicola - then why doesn’t the Times correction say that?

If police officers are going round to peoples houses and “checking their thinking” when there hasn’t been a complaint and there isn’t an investigation then that’s a bigger story. Huge.[/quote]
You are right, that would be a much bigger story which begs the question why didn't The Times go with that instead of taking the very rare step of removing all references to the original story?

We can all see what Helle wrote when summarising what the screenshotted tweet was, so no need to try and re-word it

Now barley are you still standing by your claim that "The Times are now saying this story wasn't true?"

The 'corrections' text agrees with what was said in the story. No complaint, no investigation. Which is newsworthy, isn't it?

Thank you for confirming that she did not in fact state that it was her who made the report about Murray

Yes, it’s just a coincidence that MW posted that Tweet at the same time as word got out about the cops showed up at Nicola Murray’s door asking about a blog post that specifically concerned MW.

You must think we’re all as stupid as you are.

(also that's not what 'begs the question' means)

@Helleofabore

Who knows, but it certainly seems like the claims any police action was instigated by Mridul Wadhwa were a complete fabrication.

And if it turns out it is a complete fabrication, then I will retract saying MW reported it. I read MW’s tweet while it was active and Nicola Williams’ tweet and I don’t recall seeing MW state that they didn’t report it. I might have missed it as I have been busy. So, please link the tweet where MW denied they reported it. I am sure that would be the very first thing they would do, they are very quick to tweet other things.

If it was not them, then I will most certainly retract.

By the way ... Nicola MURRAY not Williams. (many, many apologies Dr Williams)

Luckily there are still versions of the story available. Here's a link to a sight that has the entire article:
panoramicgutterviews.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-times-police-interview-charity.html
From the article:
Police Scotland did not confirm details of the interview at Murray’s house, but she has a photograph of the two officers entering her house.

So it seems there is evidence that there was a visit. Of course it might have been barleybadminton and Wadhwa pretending to be male police officers in order to freak her out ...