10 cops face sanction over allegedly dodgy personal messages. Don’t public servants have a proper to privateness anymore?

Police chiefs in Scotland have launched disciplinary motion in opposition to officers who engaged in WhatsApp chats which had been racist, sexist & homophobic. However do such feedback stop them from doing their job?

An fascinating conundrum over privateness has arisen in Scotland. It seems members of the Caledonian filth have been sharing, properly, filth with one another on personal WhatsApp teams. The messages, we’re informed, are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic and mocking of the disabled, which is just about a hate speech full home of protected traits. Extra troublingly, additionally they apparently contained images from crime scenes. 

The messages got here to gentle throughout an investigation into an allegation of misconduct in opposition to one other officer. The ten officers, who had been members of the imaginatively titled teams ‘High quality Polis’ and ‘PC Piggies’, argued that that they had a proper to privateness below Article eight of the European Conference of Human Rights in addition to below frequent legislation. Nevertheless, judges disagreed saying that “the onus on these officers to uphold the drive’s guidelines and shield the general public overrode their proper to privateness.”

Learn extra

 All of which ends up in the query, do public servants have a proper to non-public views and dialog? Is it honest that since you conform to uphold the legislation that your private conversations can be utilized in opposition to you at work?

These feedback weren’t made by way of official communications like police e mail. They weren’t posted publicly on Twitter or Fb. They had been despatched in personal, encrypted, WhatsApp teams not designed for public consumption. They’re conversations and “jokes” shared between pals. Other than the images of crime scenes, which little doubt shouldn’t be distributed on this trend, do these officers deserve sanction for making off-colour banter in personal? 

Shouldn’t or not it’s the case that if the officers are to be reprimanded, it must be for one thing they did “on the job”? Their employer, Police Scotland, argued that the content material of the messages might intervene with their “capability to uphold their duties as cops or give that impression to the general public.” However that simply creates one other downside. Does it essentially observe that since you snort at a joke on the expense of a sure group of individuals that you’d deal with them in a different way once you encounter them professionally? 

On prime of that, the query of “giving an impression to the general public” is an fascinating one, for the reason that teams had been personal, how would the general public be made conscious of them? Besides, er, when Police Scotland took this motion.

Even now, we solely know of the messages’ existence however not their precise content material, as that hasn’t been launched as a part of the investigation. We additionally don’t know who the cops are as their identities have been protected for authorized causes. So at present the scenario the general public is conscious of is ten officers, who haven’t been recognized, stated some issues that haven’t been made public, however which Police Scotland says had been dangerous. 

Leaving apart the distributing of crime scene images throughout the WhatsApp teams (a transparent breach of correct conduct, for my part), whether or not jokes or statements are racist or sexist is usually a really subjective factor, and the context issues vastly. It issues much more vastly if these feedback had been made in personal, not in knowledgeable capability, and ignoring these info units a harmful precedent. I might wager that most individuals are in WhatsApp teams the place feedback are made that one would moderately their employer not find out about. 

We then have the query of their employer, Police Scotland. It’s an organisation, alongside the broader Scottish authorities, that’s gaining one thing of a fame for not respecting freedom of speech. It famously dragged YouTuber Mark Meechan (aka Depend Dankula) via the courts over a video of his canine giving a “Nazi salute.” The SNP-lead Scottish authorities are additionally within the means of pushing a closely criticised hate crime invoice into legislation that might criminalise the extremely obscure offence of “stirring up hatred.”Whereas some will argue that they need to be counseled for holding their officers to the identical requirements as Joe Public, that’s solely an excellent factor if these requirements themselves make sense. 

Because it stands, we all know little or no about what was stated, apart from that some individuals view it as unacceptable, and we all know little or no about who stated it, apart from that they’re Scottish cops. With out extra info, it makes it very troublesome to evaluate whether or not or not these messages do counsel that the cops in query are bigoted, or simply take pleasure in dangerous style jokes. 

It additionally opens up the vital query of are public servants entitled to a personal life? Ought to they not be allowed to calm down and let their guard down when they’re “off obligation”? We don’t count on accountants to behave like accountants after they aren’t accounting, so is it honest that we count on police to behave like police after they aren’t policing? 

Learn extra

I might counsel not. Policing is usually a very harmful job and, in these circumstances, it isn’t uncommon for individuals to develop what may be termed a “darkish” sense of humour. It serves as a coping mechanism to take care of the rigours of the job. On prime of this, given the customarily delinquent hours and nature of their jobs, it’s probably that lots of their colleagues would additionally turn out to be their shut pals, and shut friendship teams, the place individuals really feel secure and unjudged, are the locations the place “close to the knuckle” jokes are sometimes made.

As has been stated, with out figuring out the content material of the messages nor the identification of the officers, it’s laborious for the broader public to come back to a judgement on how honest any disciplinary motion could be. However as a normal precept, ought to we not enable cops to have unguarded moments and the prospect for fun? If they’re to face sanction, ought to it not be over one thing they did within the line of obligation, moderately than late at night time on a WhatsApp group? I might submit that folks charged with defending the general public are simply as deserving of privateness as the remainder of us. We do, in any case, count on them to place themselves in peril to guard us; the least we are able to do in return is to allow them to converse freely in personal.

For those who like this story, share it with a buddy!