HMICFRS graded the Metropolitan Police’s performance across eight areas of policing. It found the force was adequate in one area, requires improvement in five areas and inadequate in two areas. The Met Police were not graded Outstanding or Good in any areas.
“The unique challenges facing the Metropolitan Police are not underestimated. Policing the capital city places additional strain on the force and its leadership, as the force tirelessly manages protests, state visits and royal occasions, and national and international sporting events.
“In parallel, the force is in the midst of an organisational-wide transformation, which is significant in both its size and scale. While it was evident in my inspection that many key changes have and are being made, they are not yet translating into consistent and sustained improvements in some key areas.
“While I commend the force for the progress it has made in answering the public’s calls quickly, I have serious concerns about how the force is currently investigating crime and how it manages offenders and suspects.
“I am aware that before our inspection, the force had already recognised the need to achieve better outcomes for victims. However, these plans have not yet led to consistent improvements across the whole force, and more work needs to be done to make sure that this happens.
“We will continue to monitor the Metropolitan Police under our Engage process, and I look forward to seeing the further progress made.”
Since the last HMICFRS inspection in 2022 until the 23rd January 2025, the Metropolitan Police Service was in the HMICFRS enhanced monitoring process, Engage. This gave it greater access to assistance from us, the College of Policing, the Home Office and other law enforcement agencies to make the required improvements. During this period, the force has appointed a new commissioner and deputy commissioner, and published a strategic plan called ‘A New Met for London’, which is aimed at transforming the force.
I have serious concerns about how the force is currently investigating crime and managing offenders and suspects.
I also have concerns about how the force is preventing and reducing crime and providing victims with an effective service.
On the 23rd January 2025 HMCIFRS published Metropolitan police service removed from enhanced monitoring – “The Metropolitan Police Service has made improvements and has therefore been removed from an enhanced level of monitoring by the police inspectorate.”
Policing by consent is a fundamental principle that underpins modern democratic societies. It is a concept rooted in the belief that the authority of the police derives from the consent and cooperation of the public they serve, as opposed to the power of the state.
It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can chose to withdraw their consent from the police, or from a law.
British policing is based on consent, meaning the ability of the police to carry out their functions rests on ‘public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour’
The nine principles of policing by consent, often referred to as the Peelian principles, were articulated by Sir Robert Peel.
There is no evidence that these principles were devised by Sir Robert Peel and it more than likely that they were devised by the first Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis (Sir Charles Rowan and Sir Richard Mayne).
What are the Peelian Principles ?
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Since 1829 these ‘General Instructions’ have been issued to every new police officer.
History of Policing by Consent
The origins of policing by consent can be traced back to the early 19th century in England. Prior to this period, law enforcement was often characterised by a lack of professionalism, corruption, and arbitrary use of power.
In 1829, Sir Robert Peel introduced the Metropolitan Police Act, which established the Metropolitan Police in London. This act marked a significant shift in policing philosophy, emphasising the idea of police as a civilian force serving the community rather than a military presence.
To implement his vision, Sir Robert Peel appointed Sir Charles Rowan and Sir Richard Mayne as the first Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. Rowan and Mayne were instrumental in establishing a professional police force based on Peel’s principles. They implemented rigorous recruitment standards, emphasised training and discipline, and ensured that the police operated under public scrutiny and consent.
Under the leadership of Rowan and Mayne, the Metropolitan Police successfully transformed the concept of policing in London. Their commitment to upholding the principles of policing by consent set a precedent that would influence police forces worldwide.
Sir Robert Peel
Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) was a British statesman and is widely regarded as the founder of modern policing. Born in Bury, Lancashire, England, Peel had a distinguished political career and served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twice, from 1834 to 1835 and from 1841 to 1846.
Peel is most renowned for his significant contributions to law enforcement and criminal justice reforms.
Peel’s reforms also included the establishment of the first detective force, the improvement of police training and professionalism, and the standardisation of police uniforms and equipment. His contributions to policing set the stage for the development of professional law enforcement agencies that focus on crime prevention, community engagement, and the protection of individual rights.
Beyond his work in law enforcement, Peel made other significant contributions to British politics. He was instrumental in the repeal of the Corn Laws, which were tariffs on imported grain that had protected British agriculture but contributed to high food prices for consumers. The repeal of these laws had a profound impact on British trade and economic development.
Sir Robert Peel’s legacy as a statesman and reformer, particularly in the field of policing, remains influential to this day. His principles continue to shape the foundations of modern law enforcement, emphasising the importance of community consent, accountability, and professionalism in the maintenance of public safety and order.
Sir Charles Rowan and Sir Richard Mayne
Sir Charles Rowan and Sir Richard Mayne were two key figures who played significant roles in the establishment and development of the Metropolitan Police in London, working closely with Sir Robert Peel. They were the first Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, serving under Peel’s leadership and implementing his vision of professional policing.
Sir Charles Rowan (1782-1852) was a British soldier and police administrator. He was appointed as one of the two Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police when it was first established in 1829. Rowan brought his military experience and organisational skills to the role, contributing to the professionalisation and efficiency of the police force. He worked closely with Peel to implement reforms and ensure that the principles of policing by consent were upheld. Rowan’s emphasis on discipline, training, and strategic deployment of police resources helped shape the early foundations of the Metropolitan Police.
Sir Richard Mayne (1796-1868) was a British lawyer and civil servant. He also served as one of the original Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police alongside Rowan. Mayne, known for his administrative abilities, played a crucial role in developing the infrastructure and operations of the police force. He focused on establishing clear guidelines, procedures, and protocols for police officers, ensuring that they operated within the framework of the law and maintained public trust. Mayne’s contributions helped to solidify the principles of accountability, impartiality, and transparency within the Metropolitan Police.
Rowan and Mayne worked collaboratively to shape the structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Police. They were responsible for recruiting and training officers, establishing a hierarchical command structure, and implementing policies that aligned with Peel’s principles.
Their efforts were instrumental in the successful establishment of a professional and civilian police force in London, setting a standard for policing practices that influenced law enforcement agencies both in the United Kingdom and internationally.
Policing by Consent around the World
Here are some examples of how the Peelian principles of policing by consent have influenced policing globally:-
The principles of policing by consent have had a profound influence on law enforcement practices in the United States. Many police departments strive to build positive relationships with the communities they serve, engaging in community-oriented policing initiatives, implementing transparency measures, and emphasising de-escalation techniques. The principles have also informed the development of professional standards and training programs for officers.
Australian police forces have embraced the Peelian principles as a foundation for their operations. Community engagement, collaboration, and accountability are emphasised in Australian policing, with efforts made to build trust and partnerships with the diverse communities across the country. The principles have guided the development of community policing programs and the adoption of ethical standards.
Policing in Canada is influenced by the Peelian principles, particularly in terms of community engagement and accountability. Canadian police agencies have adopted community policing strategies, emphasising the importance of building relationships, problem-solving, and preventative measures. The principles also guide the training and professional conduct of Canadian police officers.
The Peelian principles have shaped the philosophy of policing in New Zealand. The New Zealand Police explicitly incorporate the principles into their values and code of conduct. The focus on community engagement, proactive policing, and respect for human rights aligns with the Peelian principles. New Zealand Police have also emphasised the importance of building trust and legitimacy through transparency and accountability.
Policing in various European countries has been influenced by the Peelian principles. Concepts such as community policing, the protection of individual rights, and the need for police legitimacy are prevalent across European police forces. Efforts are made to establish partnerships with communities, promote equality and impartiality, and maintain transparency in police operations.
It’s important to note that while the Peelian principles have had a broad impact on policing worldwide, the specific application and implementation may vary across different countries, taking into account local laws and cultures.
Nonetheless, the principles continue to shape the ongoing development of modern policing, emphasising the importance of maintaining public trust and collaboration with the communities they serve.
The Police Digital Service (PDS) is the UK organisation responsible for coordinating, developing, delivering, and managing digital services and solutions that enable UK policing to safely harness technology to improve public safety.
Funded by policing and the Home Office, PDS works with law enforcement organisations, private industry, charities, public bodies, and government to deliver digital services and solutions with policing, for policing. The PDS are NOT a police force.
In 2022-23, Police Digital Service turnover was £74m and it made a profit of £2.4m. It runs cloud services for UK law enforcement as well as cybersecurity and IT support.
If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from pdspolice.uk (MOI domain) you may well have been looking for pds.police.cuk which is the official website for the Police Digital Service.Odd that the Police Digital Service didn’t think to register the domain?
For the avoidance of doubt this website is not run by the Police Digital Service nor is it associated in any way with the Police Digital Service.
National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA): In July 2010, the UK government outlined its vision for the future of policing in the White Paper “Policing in the 21st Century.” This document paved the way for the creation of the PDS. The NPIA played a crucial role in identifying areas for efficiency gains, encouraging collaboration, and realizing economies of scale through national procurement frameworks.
Transition from NPIA: In December 2011, Home Secretary Theresa May announced plans to replace the NPIA with two new organizations: the College of Policing (a police professional body) and the Police ICT Company (responsible for procuring IT for police forces).
Police ICT Company: In 2012, the Police ICT Company was incorporated as a private company limited by guarantee. Over time, it evolved to address the changing landscape of cyber threats and technology.
The National Management Centre (NMC), part of the PDS, is the national centre of expertise dedicated to protecting UK police forces against cybercrime. Here are key points about the NMC:
Mission: The NMC focuses on mitigating the risk of cyber threats to sensitive police data and infrastructure. It operates 24/7, providing nationally coordinated and locally delivered cybersecurity services to police forces across the UK.
Services Offered:
Protection: The NMC offers services designed to safeguard police infrastructures.
Detection: It actively monitors and detects cyber activity.
Response: In case of incidents, the NMC responds swiftly to mitigate damage.
Evolving Threat Landscape: As cyber threats continue to evolve, the NMC remains vigilant, adapting its strategies to protect police forces effectively.
Police Digital Service NMC Wins Cyber Award
The Police Digital Service’s National Management Centre (NMC) was awarded a National Cybercrime Programme Chief Superintendent’s Commendation for its role in protecting UK law enforcement against cyber threats.
The award to the National Management Centre (NMC) was presented at the annual National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) National Cybercrime Programme, Commissioners, and Chief Superintendents’ Awards.
“This commendation is a testament to the dedication and hard work of the entire team at the National Management Centre. We are honoured to be recognised by the NPCC for our contributions to tackling cyber crime and ensuring the security of our digital landscape.”
The Knowledge Hub, managed by the Police Digital Service (PDS), is a specialised digital platform designed to foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and innovation within UK policing and its select public and private sector partners.
2,878 online reports and calls were received between November 2022 and February 2024 in relation to officers and staff at the Metropolitan Police Service. It has resulted in 728 Met Police led investigations.
‘Its success has been a very positive step for our communities in London and we are pleased that all the other forces have decided to adopt it and we will see a national roll out……..It’s vital that the public know there are clear systems in place where appalling behaviours will be challenged and addressed robustly and that those within policing know they can trust their colleagues.’
The Police Anti-Corruption and Abuse Reporting Service gives people an easy way to report information about a police officer, member of police staff or volunteer who they believe are taking advantage of their role and abusing their position of power. This abuse may be for financial or sexual motivation, or their conduct could be motivated by hatred or prejudice.
You can contact the national Police Anti-Corruption and Abuse Reporting Service on 0800 085 0000 or online24/7, 365 days a year to provide any information you may have about a Police Service, police officer, member of police staff or police volunteer who engage in the following :-
Provides information or influence in return for money or favours.
Uses their policing position for personal advantage – whether financial or otherwise.
Crosses professional boundaries for sexual purposes.
Abuses or controls their partner, or those they have a relationship with.
Engages in racist, homophobic or misogynistic conduct, on or off duty, in person or online.
Call 999 if:
a serious offence is in progress or has just been committed
someone is in immediate danger or harm
property is in danger of being damaged
a serious disruption to the public is likely
Call 101 for non-emergency enquiries. You can also Report a Crime online.
‘We do not underestimate the impact recent events have had on trust and confidence in policing, including the appalling findings of the Angiolini report……The vast majority of police officers and staff act professionally and with integrity in the fulfilment of their duties to protect the public’
Sussex Police serves East and West Sussex and the city of Brighton & Hove which is an area of about 3,780km. A resident population of 1.65m people grows significantly with millions of visitors, holidaymakers, students, seasonal workers and the 46 million passengers who travel annually through Gatwick Airport.
Sussex Police are investigating (Operation Bramber) allegations of medical negligence at the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, relating to neurosurgery and general surgery at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton in the period between 2015 and 2021.
Latest Sussex Police News
Sussex Police misconduct hearing Recruit Learner DC Connor Farrell of Sussex Police will answer allegations allegedly in breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour of: Honesty & Integrity, Discreditable Conduct, Confidentiality and Duties & Instructions.
Sussex Police officer banned for dishonesty Former Sussex Police PC Jacob Vaughan was alleged to have damaged a police car he was driving while on police premises, but failed to report it. “The public deserve to trust that their police officers are behaving honestly, and we will continue to root out those who do not meet that expectation.” – Detective Superintendent Andy Wolstenholme
Sussex Police apology to vulnerable victim Sussex Police has apologised to the victim of police investigator David Gamlin who engaged in sexual activity with her while he was on duty. “Gamlin has been barred from ever serving with the police again.”
Sussex Police officer ‘said no 62 times’ during alleged sex assault PC Daniel Julian of Sussex Police was cleared of three counts of sexual assault, causing a woman to engage in sexual activity without consent and attempted rape by a jury at Lewes Crown Court in April 2024. Misconduct proceedings at Sussex Police Headquarters continue..
Sussex Police recruit barred Former PC Cameron Young did not reveal that he had previously been subject to a disciplinary investigation when applying to join Sussex Police.
Sussex Police officer found not guilty PC Sam James Wilson of Sussex Police has been found not guilty of engaging in controlling and coercive behaviour towards his former partner following a trial at Kingston Crown Court. Sussex Police will now consider misconduct proceedings as the criminal case has concluded.
Sussex Police accelerated misconduct hearing It is alleged that PC Cameron Young EC118 from the East Sussex Police Divisional Coaching Unit has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour for Honesty and Integrity. He failed to disclose a previous disciplinary investigation on his vetting form when he applied to join Sussex Police.
Sussex Police sergeant is demoted after touching colleague Sussex Police sergeant Matthew Crane who tapped out a tune on a female colleague’s bottom before asking her for naked pictures has kept his job. Sgt Crane’s actions had the potential to undermine discipline and good order within the police an undermine public confidence.
Sussex Police panel says it has ‘lost confidence’ in PCC Members of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel has said it has “lost confidence” in Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne over her attendance at a protest march over an asylum seeker camp in Crowborough.
Sussex Police officer PC Peter De Silvo has been charged with stalking and fraud offences and is due to appear before Staines Magistrates’ Court on Friday 19th December 2025
‘Thank you for the clarity and for outlining the circumstances which I am frankly mortified about and offer my sincere apologies. I am also very disappointed in those who have let you down and I have asked for that/them to be addressed.’
Former Sussex Police officer barred for life A Sussex Police statement, following the hearing, read: “A former police officer convicted of distributing indecent images of children has been found to have committed gross misconduct.”
Sussex Police needs to improve staff vetting His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) report stated there was a “huge backlog of vetting” and that some employees were working in a job “without the proper level of clearance”.
This week (April 25-29) is National Stalking Awareness Week. I have reported a stalker on several occasions to Sussex Police but they have refuse to record this as a crime. Do Sussex Police @sussex_police take stalking seriously in Sussex ?https://t.co/C9B7z3s0Sq
Ex Sussex Police PC jailed over driving offences fraud Seren Sriganesh a former Sussex police officer has been jailed after falsely claiming his parents had committed his three driving offences. He also unlawfully accessed police systems to view details of one of the offences.
‘Unhinged’ Sussex PC crashed into e-bike It is alleged Sussex Police PC Tim Bradshaw drove his police car at an e-bike causing serious injury by dangerous driving. “There’s a difference between protecting and serving our community and being unhinged”
Sussex armed police swoop on boys playing with toy Nerf guns Sussex Armed Police yelled at Two boys aged 12 and 13 to get on the ground and put down their ‘weapons’. Sussex Police only realised the nerf guns were toys when they shot the foam bullets for themselves.
Sussex Police officers, staff and volunteers work together to deliver the strategic priorities set within the Sussex Police and Crime Plan and the Sussex Police priorities which are as follows :-
A Sussex Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) was shown refusing to respond to an alleged assault in a supermarket, in a video posted on TikTok.
The video shows a man telling the officer about a fight in the Co-op store in Lancing which had been reported to the police.
The PCSO said: “I’m not a response unit.”
Sussex Police said it had launched an investigation.
The man who was filmed in conversation with the PCSO said members of the public were trying to stop a shoplifter.
He said to the PCSO: “You need to get round to the Co-op. There’s just been a fight round there, because people are trying to stop the shoplifter that you’re doing nothing about.”
He said: “People have called the police and you’re sitting here.”
The officer responded: “I’m not a response unit unfortunately.”
The man said the sight of the police car would “make them scatter”.
The officer replied: “Yeah, but then I have to deal with it.”
“That’s why I’m here and not round there.”
In a statement, Sussex Police said: “We are aware of video footage of a single-crewed Police Community Support Officer being approached by a member of the public to report an incident in Lancing.
“The matter was reported to us and a police officer attended the incident as an emergency. The PCSO also then attended the scene.”
Supt Nick Dias said: “We are sorry for the clumsy language used by the PCSO in this exchange and acknowledge the public’s concern. A police unit was dispatched to the scene as a matter of priority. Our response to this incident is being reviewed.”
Katy Bourne, Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, said she shared “the public’s disappointment and understandable concern” with the video.
“A member of the public sent me the video and I immediately shared it with the Chief Constable who referred the incident to the Sussex professional standards department.”
She added: “This is not the sort of response that I would expect and the public deserve.”
The report PEEL 2021/22 – An inspection of Sussex Police graded Sussex Police’s performance across nine areas of policing and found the force was ‘good’ in two areas, ‘adequate’ in four areas, ‘requires improvement’ in one area, and ‘inadequate’ in two areas.
Sussex Police urgently needs to improve how it responds to the public, and how it records crime.
Its recording of reports of violent crime is inadequate, and the force is also missing opportunities to safeguard vulnerable people. It needs to improve the way it assesses initial calls to the force so that vulnerable people and repeat callers are routinely identified.
As a result of my concerns I have already been in contact with the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner.
I am pleased with the way the force has responded so far and I will continue to check the force’s progress in addressing areas for improvement in the coming months.
His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary – Roy Wilsher
Sussex Police and Surrey Police failed to use people’s personal data lawfully by recording hundreds of thousands of phone calls without their knowledge. People have the right to expect that when they speak to a police officer, the information they disclose is handled responsibly. We can only estimate the huge amount of personal data collected during these conversations, including highly sensitive information relating to suspected crimes.
The reprimand reflects the use of the ICO’s wider powers towards the public sector as large fines could lead to reduced budgets for the provision of vital services. This case highlights why the ICO is pursuing a different approach, as fining Surrey Police and Sussex Police risks impacting the victims of crime in the area once again.
This case should be a lesson learned to any organisation planning to introduce an app, product or service that uses people’s personal data. Organisations must consider people’s data protection rights and implement data protection principles from the very start.
Sussex Police do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity regardless of crimes committed. This is irrelevant to the crime that has been committed and investigated.
Sussex Police Twitter 27th September 2022
Please see our statement below in relation to the recent sentencing of a historic sex offender. pic.twitter.com/7ZcwkT7yEt
.@Sussex_police have done well to put a dangerous criminal behind bars. But they’ve got it wrong by playing identity politics and denying biology. Focus on catching criminals not policing pronouns. #commonsensepolicinghttps://t.co/19U1Qf77F7
Home Secretary’s Comment About Sussex PoliceSussex Police Twitter Account
Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Priorities
“As your PCC, my job is to hold the Chief Constable of Sussex Police to account and ensure that the police focus on local priorities. I believe every citizen has a right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes.
“In consultation with the Chief Constable and the people of Sussex, I have published a Police & Crime Plan setting out the priorities and local objectives that local people and business say are important to them.
With your support, I am determined that Sussex Police will operate effectively and efficiently and that the values I have embraced during my professional career – hard work, integrity and fairness – underpin everything we do together.”
Police typically are responsible for maintaining public order and safety, enforcing the law, and preventing, detecting, and investigating criminal activities.
Sussex Police should concentrate on doing the job that they are paid to do.No wonder the public have no faith in the Police !
Auditing Britain is a popular YouTube channel that had 396K subscribers and 1k videos (As of 30th June 2026).
Auditors such as Auditing Britain, it is said, use “security concerns surrounding the filming of staff and premises, alongside limited powers to prevent it…..They are also well-versed in their own rights and often cite legislation in their interactions with staff.”
What is the Identity of Auditing Britain ?
The iWiki website assumes the identity of Auditing Britain – “Auditing Britain is the pseudonym of a popular YouTuber, whose name is assumed to be Reda Bouadi-Clifton“
In a version of the Britain Times webpage from 2023 archived on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine “According to a Facebook post, Auditing Britain’s real name is Reda Bouadi-Clifton.”
The National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology was allegedly established to bring together cross-government monitoring and analysis capabilities. The National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) was previously known as the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU).
It is often said that when a government decides what information is to be disseminated to the people, the institution of government is no longer for the people but for its own self-preservation. The 1949 George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty Four (1984) had a fictional Ministry of Truth.
On the 3rd June 2023 The Telegraph published an article Elon Musk joins backlash over secret unit curbing lockdown dissent and states “The billionaire Twitter owner condemned the ‘terrible’ tactics used by the Government during the pandemic, as revealed by the Telegraph”
Molly Kingsley published the following Tweet on the 3rd June 2023 containing evidence of government censorship following a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the CDU at the DCMS.
Following the @Telegraph news story today on censorship, the attached photos are the list of my articles, tweets and comments flagged by the Counter Disinformation Unit as potential ‘disinformation’.
It starts in 2020, continues throughout 2021 and into 2022 and even 2023, and… pic.twitter.com/vpPVEdqMkQ
Is the following evidence of Disinformation by the Counter Disinformation Unit or an MP ?2019 v 2020 ?
The Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) was first set up within the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in 2019 and it has since responded to periods of acute disinformation risk including Covid-19.
Lucy Powell who is the Labour MP for Manchester South tabled (UIN 98962) the following parliamentary question on the 6th January 2022
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, whether the cross-Whitehall unit to counter disinformation on covid-19 is operating as of 6 January 2022; how many staff working as part of that unit there are in the (a) Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, (b) Home Office (c) Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, (d) Cabinet Office and (e) Ministry of Defence; and whether the number of staff in each team has increased or decreased since that unit was established in March 2020.
Chris Philp who is the Conservative MP for Croydon South replied on the 11th January 2022.
The Cross-Whitehall Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) was established on 5 March 2020, bringing together cross-government monitoring and analysis capabilities. As of 7 January 2022 the CDU is still fully operational.
Addressing the challenges of disinformation and misinformation is a whole of the government effort. The CDU is resourced full time and works in close partnership with cross-government teams. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the size of the team in DCMS has increased. Requirements are continually reviewed to ensure appropriate levels of resourcing, including surge capacity as needed.
When false narratives are identified, the CDU coordinates departments across Whitehall to deploy the appropriate response. This can include a direct rebuttal on social media, flagging content to platforms and ensuring public health campaigns are promoted through reliable sources.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) independently assesses and reports, in the public interest, on the effectiveness and efficiency of police forces and fire & rescue services.
“Promoting improvements in policing and fire & rescue services to make everyone safer”
HMICFRS ask the questions that they believe the public wish to have answered, and publish their findings, conclusions and recommendations. HMICFRS use their expertise to interpret the evidence and make recommendations for improvement.
Police and crime commissioners are required to publish their comments on each HMICFRS report within 56 days of its publication, and must include an explanation of the steps to be taken in response to each HMICFRS recommendation or an explanation of why no action has been or is to be taken in that respect.
HMICFRS provide authoritative information to allow the public to compare the performance of their police force and fire & rescue service against others. HMICFRS also routinely monitor the performance of police forces in England and Wales.
HMICFRS inspects across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
HMICFRS also inspect law enforcement arrangements in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, on invitation from the relevant government, as well as non-territorial services, specialist agencies and international police forces.
For over 160 years, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) independently inspected and reported on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces.
In the summer of 2017 HMIC took on the inspections of England’s fire and rescue services, inspecting and reporting on their efficiency, effectiveness and people.
To reflect this new role, HMIC changed their name to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS).
Public Interest
HMICFRS Police Inspections :-
HMICFRS’s annual inspection programme and framework for police forces in England and Wales is subject to the approval of the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996.
The Home Secretary may also require HMICFRS to carry out further inspections of police forces, beyond the terms of the annual inspection programme. Local policing bodies may commission HMICFRS to do inspections in their force areas, although HMICFRS is not required to accept any such commission.
In devising its policing inspection programme and framework for the Home Secretary’s approval, HMICFRS considers the risks to the public, service quality, public concerns, the operating environment, the effect which inspection may have on a force, and the benefits to the public of improvements which may follow inspection.
HMICFRS may also carry out inspections of police forces on its own initiative if it considers that the performance or circumstances of a force merit it.
The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 provides that HMICFRS will inspect and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of fire & rescue authorities in England.
HMICFRS’s inspection programme and framework for fire and rescue authorities in England is subject to the approval of the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary may also require HMICFRS to carry out further inspections of any or all fire and rescue services in England.
In its inspections, HMICFRS focuses on the efficiency and effectiveness of each English fire and rescue authority and how well it looks after its people. HMICFRS may also on its own initiative carry out an inspection not in its inspection programme and framework if it considers that the performance or circumstances of the fire and rescue authority merit it.
HMICFRS is an inspectorate, not a regulator. Inspectorates have powers to secure information, but no powers to give orders for change. Recommendations are not orders.
Regulators, on the other hand, have powers of intervention, direction and enforcement.
It is for chief constables (whose operational independence is a cornerstone of British policing), police and crime commissioners (with powers to set local priorities and budgets) and, in extreme cases, the Home Secretary (who has ultimate democratic responsibility for policing) to take action as a result of HMICFRS’s recommendations. The same applies to the fire & rescue service itself, and the fire & rescue authorities.
In the first annual assessment of policing in England and Wales, Andy Cooke QPM DL who is His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has called for major reform, including new legal powers for the inspectors of constabulary.
Andy Cooke has described widespread and systemic failures in both the police and criminal justice system, both of which threaten to damage further the public’s trust in police.
the police need to prioritise the issues that matter most to the public;
forces are failing to get the basics right in investigation and responding to the public, and they need to concentrate on effective neighbourhood policing; and
critical elements of the police service’s leadership and workforce arrangements need substantial reform, such as more scrutiny on vetting and recruitment processes, including for chief officers.
The police are experiencing one of their biggest crises in living memory. I can’t recall a time when the relationship between the police and the public was more strained than it is now.
The public’s trust and confidence are unacceptably low. The fundamental principle of policing by consent, upon which the service is built, is at risk.
His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary has called for definitive action to be taken to address these failings, instead of “glossy strategies and mission statements” that do not bring about lasting change.
“I was a police officer for 36 years before I took this job. I am in no doubt of the dedication, bravery and commitment of the vast majority of police officers and staff. But there are clear and systemic failings throughout the police service in England and Wales and, thanks to a series of dreadful scandals, public trust in the police is hanging by a thread.
“I am calling for substantial reform to give the inspectors of constabulary more power to ensure we are able to do everything necessary to help police forces improve. Over the years, we have repeatedly called for change. There are only so many times we can say the same thing in different words – it is now time for the Government to bring in new legislation to strengthen our recommendations.
“Change needs to start at the top. Chief constables and police and crime commissioners need to do more to make sure their forces are efficient and to get a grip on their priorities. The police are not there to be the first port of call for people in mental health crisis or to uphold social justice. They are there to uphold the law.
“Forces need to show professionalism, get the basics right when it comes to investigating crime, and respond properly when someone dials 999. This is what matters most to the communities they serve and this is the way forward for the police to regain the public’s trust. The fundamental principle of policing by consent, upon which our police service is built, is at risk – and it is past time to act.”
Love or hate auditors on YouTube, there is an ever growing library of videos that show the Police abusing their powers, making up the law and showing complete ignorance of the law.
Having watched the video, it is clear that PC 1191 Madison Moss-Hayes of Nottinghamshire Police based at Byron House Police Station urgently needs some training so that she understands how to approach the public, civil trespass, the law about photography in public and what Section 35 is and how to use it lawfully.
9:32 “It’s the law mate“
12:57 When asked under what law…….”Under a Section 35 Act ok so it’s a dispersal order“
14:03 When asked again…………”It’s under Section 35 Act“
PC 1191’s bold statement “It’s the Law” is totally wrong as It’s not the law.
Calling a member of the public “mate” is also high questionable and unprofessional.
The College of Policing publish a Code of Conduct which sets out the principles and standards of behaviour that we expect to see from police professionals.
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
I can only assume PC 1191 Madison Moss-Hayes of Nottinghamshire Police was referring to Section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. There is no evidence to suggest that authorisation was granted as required under Section 34 of the same Act.
In my opinion, any arrest made by PC Moss-Hayes would have been unlawful and The Gwent Auditor would have been able to make a civil claim against the Police Constable and Nottinghamshire Police.
34 Authorisations to use powers under section 35
(1) A police officer of at least the rank of inspector may authorise the use in a specified locality, during a specified period of not more than 48 hours, of the powers given by section 35.
“Specified” means specified in the authorisation.
(2) An officer may give such an authorisation only if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of those powers in the locality during that period may be necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of—
(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or
(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.
(3) In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
“Convention” has the meaning given by section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(4) An authorisation under this section—
(a) must be in writing,
(b) must be signed by the officer giving it, and
(c) must specify the grounds on which it is given.
35 Directions excluding a person from an area
(1) If the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are met and an authorisation is in force under section 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation—
(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and
(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction (“the exclusion period”).
(2) The first condition is that the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to—
(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or
(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.
(3) The second condition is that the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of the events mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b).
(4) The exclusion period may not exceed 48 hours.
The period may expire after (as long as it begins during) the period specified in the authorisation under section 34.
(5) A direction under this section—
(a) must be given in writing, unless that is not reasonably practicable;
(b) must specify the area to which it relates;
(c) may impose requirements as to the time by which the person must leave the area and the manner in which the person must do so (including the route).
(6) The constable must (unless it is not reasonably practicable) tell the person to whom the direction is given that failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction is an offence.
(7) If the constable reasonably believes that the person to whom the direction is given is under the age of 16, the constable may remove the person to a place where the person lives or a place of safety.
(8) Any constable may withdraw or vary a direction under this section; but a variation must not extend the duration of a direction beyond 48 hours from when it was first given.
(9) Notice of a withdrawal or variation of a direction—
(a) must be given to the person to whom the direction was given, unless that is not reasonably practicable, and
(b) if given, must be given in writing unless that is not reasonably practicable.
(10) In this section “public place” means a place to which at the material time the public or a section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.
(11) In this Part “exclusion period” has the meaning given by subsection (1)(b).
An independent review by the Police Leadership Commission has concluded… Read more: Police Leadership Commission Report
Repealing a law in the United Kingdom does not mean… Read more: Repeal a Law
The provision of judges’ lodgings is a longstanding feature of… Read more: What are Judges Lodgings ?
The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests… Read more: What is Two Tier Policing ?
Handcuffs are a standard restraint tool used by police officers… Read more: Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police
Judge Nicholas Edward Rowland, known as His Honour Judge Nicholas… Read more: His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland
The police barred and advisory lists, which are managed by… Read more: Police Barred and Advisory Lists
The President of the Family Division is a highly esteemed… Read more: President of the Family Division
Crimestoppers is widely promoted as the United Kingdom’s leading provider… Read more: Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?
In magistrates’ courts across England and Wales, lay justices (magistrates… Read more: What is a Court Legal Adviser ?
A skeleton argument is a concise written document prepared by… Read more: What is a Skeleton Argument ?
His Honour Judge Martin John Cook was for sale, in… Read more: Can you Buy a Judge ?
