Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

The IOPC has made nine national recommendations on officers' work use of WhatsApp after a series of investigations.

Date - 14th June 2021
By - Chloe Livadeas

The Independent Office for Police Conduct said the recommendations were triggered by an investigation which found work-related WhatsApp messages on a Met officer’s phone.

The watchdog is concerned that officers are using the platform from their personal phones to talk about work matters, including sharing operational information and sensitive documents.

The IOPC carried out a review of all forces in England and Wales’ use of the messaging platform, and analysed information provided by 29 forces, including the three largest (the Met, West Midlands and Greater Manchester Police), plus data supplied by three law enforcement bodies.

They found a consistent approach to using instant messaging platforms was needed as each force used them differently.

The review identified a need for guidance, specifically around identifying and managing risks, which the IOPC said could be “sharing information on an incorrect group chat and disclosing details to the wrong people".

This could then be compounded when officers’ communicate with large community groups and where the mobile phone is used for both personal and professional purposes”

IOPC Deputy Director General for Operations Claire Bassett said: “Social media and instant messaging are a part of all of our lives and it’s important that policing policies and procedures reflect changes in the way we use technology in everyday life.

"WhatsApp can be a useful tool for officers to message one another about swapping a shift or for communications like sharing information if a child is missing or notifying communities about an increase in thefts.

“At the same time, the risks associated with this use need to be managed, so it’s critical to get the balance right. These recommendations will help police forces do this, and it’s been good to see several forces have already set up task forces in response to look at this.”

One of the nine recommendations is that forces should ensure consistency between WhatsApp use, their own social media policies and Authorised Professional Practise/ACPO guidance - "taking into account that information placed on social media may end up in the wider public domain".

Last year the Federation Conduct and Performance Sub-Committee misconduct lead Tiffany Lynch, told Police Oracle that forces should do more to set the perimeters for officers use of social media.

It's just the latest advice statements aimed at ensuring officers can prevent breaches of standards from happening - a move welcomed by the Police Federation.

The IOPC has now issued 400 learning reports to change practice and share learning - a critical issue for the Fed.

Phill Matthews, the Fed’s Conduct and Performance Lead, said: “We need forces to adopt the learning and re-write their policies and procedures. That’s really key.”

View On Police Oracle

[Dave SYP + 2,961]

I hope nobody reads mine! 😳🤫😲😵‍💫🥴 But seriously, do we have to involve the IOPC for everything these days? Where’s common sense and words of advice from more senior officers? Are PSD being made redundant? 

[Jack McCoy 303]

54 minutes ago, Dave SYP said:

Are PSD being made redundant? 

PSD investigate complaints in a professional manner. The IOPC look for ways to sharpen their political axe and will uncritically embrace the negative perceptions against Police without challenging any of them, even if demonstrably false. 

One are a group of trained investigators, the other are a group of indoctrinated instigators. 

[Equin0x 161]

The watchdog is concerned that officers are using the platform from their personal phones to talk about work matters, including sharing operational information and sensitive documents.

I'd say it's safe enough to send and receive operational information through WhatsApp. The messages are all encrypted so even if some OCG gang went to extreme lengths of getting IMSI catchers and intercepting officers phone data, they wouldn't actually be able to read any of the messages. The only concern is the security of the end device, but as long as officers use a passcode it's fine. They could also look at using Signal instead, same standard of encryption and you can set it up so all messages automatically self-destruct after a set time.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Equin0x

[POM0272 242]

My advice to all new recruits is to stay well clear of social media and be very wary of who they contact/contacts them and what they send and receive. It’s a minefield that can lead to job loss.

The semantics and lexicon of sarcasm and opinion cannot be directed post, pressing post. Innocent comments/jokes could well end you up in a disciplinary hearing - because someone’s either been a offended harassed. The criming standards for mal cons and harassment are beyond a joke. 
 

Be wise before and after the event

[Dave SYP + 2,961]

And to think, I only ever got into hot water face to face in meetings 🙄😂  It’s a minefield these days!  Good advice from POMO272 steering clear of any trip hazards in messaging 👍

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

Only an idiot would think that social media is safe, POM0272 Has it right. Do not forget that we all sign the Official Secrets Act and divulging anything is walking a tight rope.

[Ether + 1,395]

21 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

Only an idiot would think that social media is safe, POM0272 Has it right. Do not forget that we all sign the Official Secrets Act and divulging anything is walking a tight rope.

Most police information isn’t really covered by the Official Secrets Acts 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

44 minutes ago, Ether said:

Most police information isn’t really covered by the Official Secrets Acts 

That is why I said "It is walking a tight rope"  Get it wrong once !

[Equin0x 161]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

Only an idiot would think that social media is safe, POM0272 Has it right. Do not forget that we all sign the Official Secrets Act and divulging anything is walking a tight rope.

The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect secrets, it is there to protect officials. And like any law it applies to you whether you "sign" it or not.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Equin0x

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

10 hours ago, Equin0x said:

The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect secrets, it is there to protect officials. And like any law it applies to you whether you "sign" it or not.

Please do a little research before you become an expert. 

As a precis, "The Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989 provide the main legal protection in the UK against espionage and the unauthorised disclosure of information. Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended by the 1920 and 1939 Official Secrets Acts) sets out offences related to spying, sabotage and related crimes. The Official Secrets Act 1989 creates an offence for the unlawful disclosure of information in six specific categories by employees and former employees of the security and intelligence services, and for current and former Crown Servants and Government contractors".

I was pointing out the potential dangers of officers disclosing some information that they should not, inadvertently or not.

[BizzieBee 100]

22 hours ago, Dave SYP said:

do we have to involve the IOPC for everything these days?

Yes, the Inept Office of Pandering to Citizens is furthering its involvement given its Quango position and leniency provided by the state. 

Don’t forget the job, and the politicians donning the tipstaff, like to promote its ‘do good’ image, too. 

[Equin0x 161]

8 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

Please do a little research before you become an expert. 

As a precis, "The Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989 provide the main legal protection in the UK against espionage and the unauthorised disclosure of information. Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended by the 1920 and 1939 Official Secrets Acts) sets out offences related to spying, sabotage and related crimes. The Official Secrets Act 1989 creates an offence for the unlawful disclosure of information in six specific categories by employees and former employees of the security and intelligence services, and for current and former Crown Servants and Government contractors".

I was pointing out the potential dangers of officers disclosing some information that they should not, inadvertently or not.

I apologize, it was a joke ripped from Yes Minister

[Ether + 1,395]

On 15/06/2021 at 22:17, Equin0x said:

The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect secrets, it is there to protect officials. And like any law it applies to you whether you "sign" it or not.

Eh 🤷🏻‍♂️ 
 

I think you need to re-read the various Official Secrets act. 
 

There is more than one and some don’t apply to all