Essex Police has set up a “gold group” usually reserved for dealing with major crimes to handle the investigation into a Telegraph journalist’s social media post.
Allison Pearson, an award-winning writer, is being investigated by the force for allegedly stirring up racial hatred with a social media post made in November last year.
In a visit to Pearson’s house, officers refused to tell her any details about which post on X, formerly Twitter, was being investigated, or who made the complaint against her.
Pearson said that officers told her that the matter was being treated as a non-crime hate incident rather than a criminal investigation.
The force claims this is “wholly inaccurate” and said that “as the public would expect” it had body-worn video of the encounter which it claimed “entirely supports our position”.
It came as a county councillor accused Essex Police of “institutional incompetence and dysfunction on an epic scale”, and it emerged that the force had admitted it was unable to send an emergency response to all 999 calls about drug dealing.
The Telegraph previously revealed the scale of the year-long inquiry, which involved officers from the
Metropolitan Police, Sussex Police and Essex Police all having handled the complaint over the past year.
On Friday, it emerged the force had set up a gold group, usually used to deal with major incidents such as terror attacks, to deal with the investigation.
The purpose of gold groups is to ensure the “effectiveness of ongoing police response” and they are usually headed by an assistant chief constable or above.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services say a gold group is set up to “improve the police response to an incident, crime or other matter”.
The guidance states: “This involves bringing together appropriately skilled and qualified interested parties who can advise, guide or otherwise support the management of an effective response to the identified incident, crime or other matter.”
The Telegraph understands that the social media post in question was reported to the Metropolitan Police as a potential breach of the Malicious Communications Act in November last year. The case was then passed to Sussex Police, which marked it as a possible
non-crime hate incident (NCHI), as well as a potential malicious communication.
Sussex Police passed it to Essex, where Pearson lives. It is understood Essex made two assessments of the complaint before opening an investigation under section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to material allegedly “likely or intended to cause racial hatred”, and visiting her house.
The investigation into Pearson has been labelled as a “chilling” attack on free speech by a force that has “prioritised diversity over real crime”.
Councillor Neil Gregory, a substitute member of the Essex Police, Fire and Crime Panel, accused Essex Police of “institutional incompetence and dysfunction on an epic scale”.
He told The Telegraph: “It is certainly the impression I get that they are prioritising diversity over real crime.
“Sadly the appalling treatment of Allison is merely the tip of the iceberg of an obsession with diversity, neglect of crime and institutional incompetence and dysfunction on an epic scale.
“CC [Chief Constable Ben-Julian] Harrington is more concerned with promoting diversity than dealing with crime, indeed his divisional commander for Uttlesford and Braintree made it clear at a public meeting that they will not address active and public drug dealing due to lack of resources, Essex Police appear to have resources to chase those sending tweets on Remembrance Sunday but not for catching drug dealers in broad daylight.
“There is a bizarre set of priorities. We have a bad drug-dealing problem, we have a very under-resourced policing panel and you go on the various Twitter feeds of various officers and it’s all about the latest diversity courses they have gone to.”
What is a non-crime hate incident?
The College of Policing states that it is any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on:
- A person’s race or perceived race, including any racial group or ethnic background including countries within the UK, and gypsy and traveller groups;
- A person’s religion or perceived religion, including any religious group including those who have no faith in a theology;
- A person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation;
- A person’s disability or perceived disability including physical disability, learning disability and mental health or developmental disorders;
- A person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender, including people who are transsexual, transgender, cross dressers and those who hold a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
While there is no specific sanction for a non-crime incident, it can be recorded by police if an incident is initially reported as a crime. But it is not clear from the report whether a crime has been committed or not.
It can also be recorded where the alleged behaviour falls short of criminal activity, but the surrounding circumstances suggest that the behaviour may contribute to – or become evidence of – a course of criminal conduct.
Expand
Essex Police have been accused of ignoring 999 calls from concerned residents about drug deals on the streets, according to documents obtained by The Telegraph.
Documents also revealed that Essex Police would not “dispatch a patrol car” every time it received a tip-off from a concerned resident.
At a community meeting in Uttlesford in February this year, police were told residents often saw drug deals being done in public and they believed police were not doing anything about it.
“We noted the number of residents at the meeting who expressed concerns about apparent open drug dealing in various communities across the district and the seeming lack of response to those activities when reported,” according to Mr Gregory.
“It was made clear that 999 calls on overt drug dealing would not be pursued.”
In response, Roger Hirst, the Essex Police Fire and Crime Commissioner, told several representatives who attended the meeting that the force took drug-related crime “very seriously”.
However, every call from the public “won’t always be by dispatching a patrol car”, he said.
“It will more often be by using intelligence, building strong cases and taking away their ability to exploit and manipulate the children and young people they rely on to fuel this business.”
With some residents still unhappy about the Essex Police’s response to drug crimes, Andy Marriner, the Essex Police Assistant Chief Constable, wrote to “assure” local councillors that the force “tackles drug dealing robustly and continues to listen to the concerns of the district’s residents”.
He outlined several drug stings that had resulted in arrests and urged residents to continue to contact police with any information.
“We are also progressing several investigations in the district which have commenced as a result of the community sharing information with us,” Assistant Chief Constable Marriner said in the email.
“The more we receive the more we are able to continue to take action where appropriate, and I would ask that you encourage your district’s residents to continue reporting their observations with as much detail as possible to assist us in building the picture of what is occurring in their area for all crimes so that we can take forward.”
A spokesman for Essex Police said: “Officers went to a residential address to arrange a time to do an interview with a woman about a complaint made by a member of the public.
“That’s why, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, no further information was provided – this call was made by officers, who were in the area at the time, to simply set up a time to speak in the coming days.
“At no stage during the short interaction between the woman and our officers was she informed that the report being investigated was being treated as a non-crime hate incident. To suggest otherwise is wholly inaccurate and misleading.
“As the public would expect, we have body-worn video of this interaction which entirely supports our position in this respect.”
The spokesman said the force took drug-related crime “very seriously” and its work had resulted in drug dealers being jailed for a total of 800 years in 2023.
They said: “In total across Essex last year, we arrested 440 people on suspicion of drug dealing offences; 305 were charged – a 70 per cent charge rate.
“The rate of drug offences in Uttlesford is half that of the rest of the country. There are 1.6 drug offences per 1,000 people in Uttlesford, across Essex that is 3 per 1,000.”
