Why are yo us a fa nd me being treated differently by police scotland?
◆ In a liberal democracy, the police have to be publicly accountable for their policies and actions, writes Murdo Fraser
My late father spent much of his life devoted to the service of the old Northern Constabulary in Inverness. A mechanic by trade, he served for years as a volunteer Special Constable. When the opportunity came up to join the force as a civilian officer, driving and maintaining vehicles, he jumped at it. For him, the combination of working with engines, performing a public duty, and the comradeship of a uniformed service, was irresistible.
I do not know what he would have made of his son’s experience at the hands of Police Scotland over the past few weeks, but I cannot imagine that he would have been impressed. As I wrote here two weeks ago, I have challenged the police over their decision to record a ‘noncrime hate incident’ (NCHI) in relation to a social media post of mine criticising Scottish Government gender policy.
Having taken legal advice with the help of the Free Speech Union, I believe that this policy on the part of Police Scotland is unlawful as contrary to human rights. I gave the police until last Friday to respond – on Thursday they replied that as the issues were “complex” they would need more time to respond. I, and my lawyers, are waiting.
In the meantime, there have been other significant developments. The new Hate Crime Act came into force last week, and it immediately became obvious that the warnings from many quarters that the legislation would be weaponised by political activists were being fulfilled. To date around 8,000 complaints have been made, overwhelming the police who had committed to investigating every one.
According to David Kennedy, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, cuts in police resources are storing up problems for the future putting Scots at risk from organised crime, extremism and terrorism. Add in the time now having to be spent responding to hate complaints – the vast majority of which will be spurious and vexatious – and there will be even less time to tackle what people would regard as ‘real crime’.
My own situation with NCHIS has become even murkier. Having confirmed to me on March 11 that my social media post had led to an NCHI being recorded, last week Police Scotland said it was not “recorded against my name”. I struggle to reconcile these two statements. If a record of ‘my’ NCHI exists, it surely must contain reference to the original post, meaning that my name must be on a police record. If not, how were they able to tell me that it existed in the first place when I enquired about it? None of this makes sense. Worse still, we learned last week that in relation to the numerous complaints made against both JK Rowling and Humza Yousaf under the Act, no NCHIS had been recorded – a clear departure from the police policy which applied in my case. I wrote to the police last week asking if the policy had changed, and if so when, and where the new policy (if it exists) might be found. I also asked if the police were not concerned that taking action against an opposition MSP but not the SNP First Minister suggested political bias. Again, I await a response.
When this newspaper approached the police with the same question, it was told by them “we have nothing further to add” to what they had said already. So either they don’t know themselves, or they think we are unworthy of an explanation. Neither interpretation is satisfactory. When asked about this by broadcasters, Humza Yousaf said that claims of police bias were “ludicrous”.
I would like to think that he is right in that, but in the absence of a credible explanation for my different treatment compared to him, what other inference can be drawn?
So how do we get answers from the police, not just for me but for thousands of others affected? If as an MSP I put these questions to Scottish ministers I am told that these are operational matters for the police. But they won’t answer my – or journalists’ – questions. Can we really have a police force that has zero accountability?
Prior to the creation of the single police force, we at least had a measure of democratic oversight of policing, with regional police boards made up of elected local councillors who could scrutinise and challenge Chief Constables. That all disappeared with the creation of Police Scotland. It is now answerable to the Scottish Police Authority, whose members are not elected by anyone, but appointed by SNP ministers (in stark contrast to England where Chief Constables are held to account by directly elected police and crime commissioners).
So where has the SPA been over the past two weeks? Has its chair been on the airwaves raising concerns about police actions and their refusal to answer questions? No, there has been radio silence, not a cheep. The criticisms made in the past about the relationship between SPA and Police Scotland being too cosy look like they may have validity.
Yesterday I wrote to Martyn Evans, SPA chair, to ask if he shared my concerns about Police Scotland’s policy on recording NCHIS, and specifically if he could help get the answers to my unanswered questions. I am sure that, if he doesn’t want to create the impression that his organisation is as useful as a chocolate teapot, he will be keen to assist.
In any liberal democracy, the police force cannot be a law unto themselves. They have to be publicly accountable for their policies and actions. I know that is the view of many of my father’s contemporaries in the force who have been in touch with me with messages of support for the stand I am taking. They, like me, expect better of our Chief Constable and her team.
Warnings that the legislation would be weaponised by political activists were being fulfilled