POLICE Scotland has been accused of drawing up a “deeply worrying” policy requiring officers to notify the force of “associations” they have with MSPs and journalists.
Members of political parties and the media have been lumped in with criminals as groups of people that police personnel must declare their links to.
Calum Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, said the system would “not be out of place in a banana republic”.
Since the inception of Police Scotland in 2013, MSPs and journalists have helped expose force policy on issues ranging from stop and search, armed policing, illegal spying and the impact of cuts.
Serving officers are believed to have contacted MSPs and the media and revealed bad practice that has embarrassed the force.
However, critics fear that a new Police Scotland “standard operating procedure” for officers could stop legitimate public interest concerns from being raised through these channels.
The policy on “notifiable associations” was put together to protect the force’s officers and staff by laying down when they should “always” declare their contacts with external individuals.
Top of the list was anyone with a criminal conviction and people charged with an offence on matters involving dishonesty, disorder, sexual conduct and serious crimes.
Officers also have to declare associations with persons “known to be under investigation” or subject to criminal intelligence, as well as with former police officers.
However, one of the categories clearly includes MPs and MSPs: “Members of any political party where the membership involves playing an active part in politics.”
Journalists also get a special place in the dossier: “This would include but is not limited to: journalists; researchers for news/gossip publications and/or internet resources; internet, television or radio presenters where there may be a potential conflict with Police Scotland Operations/Investigations.”
According to the document, an “association” is defined as including “meeting or uniting for a common purpose”, “keeping company or being familiar with” an individual in these groups, or “friendship, intimacy or connection”.
Relationships undertaken through social media or “other online platforms” also have to be declared.
Steele said: “No one would argue against the police service having adequate policies to protect itself and its officers from potential risk. That being said, any policy that equates contact with elected parliamentarians and journalists with contact with criminals is deeply worrying. It risks being seen as attempt to silence dissent that would not be out of place in a banana republic.”
Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur said: “The public will find it absurd that officers are required to treat an association with a member of the media or a political party, in the same way as an association with someone with a criminal conviction.
“As an elected representative, it is important that officers feel secure in sharing their concerns with me on a confidential basis. In the public interest, Police Scotland should consider clarifying or revising these guideline.”
Scottish Conservative MSP Liam Kerr said: "This is a truly bizarre inclusion to procedures. It is likely to create widespread questions as to why Police Scotland are treating both journalists and MSPs with the same suspicion as criminals.
"Rather frustratingly, this is yet another example of Police Scotland avoiding transparency and accountability.
"When police officers contact journalists or MSPs to pass on information or concerns, it is done in the public interest, and it would be a worrying step if that type of whistle blowing practice were to be stopped or hindered."
Chief Superintendent Alan Speirs, Head of Professional Standards for Police Scotland, said: "The guidance in the SOP has undergone a Human Rights Equality Impact Assessment, and we also provide guidance to our people in relation to "whistleblowing" which is designed to reassure and support Police Scotland employees who wish to provide information in relation to matters that concern them."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel