Police - Is This Really What I Should Expect?
Discussion
I have received death threats from what is obviously a mentally unbalanced person who knows my address
I left a negative review because he had a terrible attitude
He then demonstrated this (and his stupidity) by sending multiple threatening text messages from his phone
So an easy prosecution for Assault
I called 101 - long queues please use Live Chat
After almost an hour on Live Chat they say someone will call in the morning
They do and say that as I haven't got his surname they can't do anything
I've given them his number and his company
I quickly googled it and gave them his name
"I'll give you a Crime Number but we can't really do anything as we haven't got his address"
I googled again and found his business address
"Well we don't have his date of birth"
is this really the state of policing ?
I left a negative review because he had a terrible attitude
He then demonstrated this (and his stupidity) by sending multiple threatening text messages from his phone
So an easy prosecution for Assault
I called 101 - long queues please use Live Chat
After almost an hour on Live Chat they say someone will call in the morning
They do and say that as I haven't got his surname they can't do anything
I've given them his number and his company
I quickly googled it and gave them his name
"I'll give you a Crime Number but we can't really do anything as we haven't got his address"
I googled again and found his business address
"Well we don't have his date of birth"
is this really the state of policing ?What assault? You don't mention an assault anywhere?
Someone sending you nasty messages with no evidence of anything else is not going to be top of anyone's list I'm afraid. Can you imagine how many reports a day the police get of someone sending a text which says "I'm going to f
king kill you" or similar?
Someone sending you nasty messages with no evidence of anything else is not going to be top of anyone's list I'm afraid. Can you imagine how many reports a day the police get of someone sending a text which says "I'm going to f
king kill you" or similar?charltjr said:
What assault? You don't mention an assault anywhere?
Someone sending you nasty messages with no evidence of anything else is not going to be top of anyone's list I'm afraid. Can you imagine how many reports a day the police get of someone sending a text which says "I'm going to fking kill you" or similar?
I believe a death threat falls under 'common assault'. You don't have to actually hit someone to have committed assault.Someone sending you nasty messages with no evidence of anything else is not going to be top of anyone's list I'm afraid. Can you imagine how many reports a day the police get of someone sending a text which says "I'm going to f
king kill you" or similar?This would likely be recorded/investigated as threats to kill or malicious communications offence, rather than an assault.
It will be one of literally hundreds of such offences reported nationally to police every day, where someone threatens somebody else via telephone. I recall being told that such harassment makes up for around 20% of all recorded crime, to give you some idea.
Police can go down the route of 'cycomms' enquiries, where by they make a request to find out who is the contract holder/bill payer for that particular phone number used in the commission of a malicious communications offence, but this is not always the same as being able to definitively prove what was said and by whom during a 'threatening' phonecall (which is not recorded by the phone company since we don't live in Communist East Germany, so it often boils down to one word against the other).
Proving that a particular individual pays the bill for (or has topped up that specific phone account) is not quite the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt that a particular person sent those specific messages either, but that's going down the rabbit hole...
Do you believe that this person has capacity and genuine intent to carry out the threats, and if so, why?
How does this person know your address? What is your relationship to this person?
The answers to the above questions will help indicate whether or not there is a genuine risk of harm, and if not, the matter may not be investigated further....
Despite what much of the media suggests, policing exists is in a state of near crisis where in many areas, demand for service vastly outstrips resources, and it is not possible for every crime to be investigated to the Nth degree.
It will be one of literally hundreds of such offences reported nationally to police every day, where someone threatens somebody else via telephone. I recall being told that such harassment makes up for around 20% of all recorded crime, to give you some idea.
Police can go down the route of 'cycomms' enquiries, where by they make a request to find out who is the contract holder/bill payer for that particular phone number used in the commission of a malicious communications offence, but this is not always the same as being able to definitively prove what was said and by whom during a 'threatening' phonecall (which is not recorded by the phone company since we don't live in Communist East Germany, so it often boils down to one word against the other).
Proving that a particular individual pays the bill for (or has topped up that specific phone account) is not quite the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt that a particular person sent those specific messages either, but that's going down the rabbit hole...
Do you believe that this person has capacity and genuine intent to carry out the threats, and if so, why?
How does this person know your address? What is your relationship to this person?
The answers to the above questions will help indicate whether or not there is a genuine risk of harm, and if not, the matter may not be investigated further....
Despite what much of the media suggests, policing exists is in a state of near crisis where in many areas, demand for service vastly outstrips resources, and it is not possible for every crime to be investigated to the Nth degree.
The most likely offences that would be charged (or more likely, postal requisition) would be threats to kill or malicious communications, possibly harassment.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/10...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/secti...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/secti...
The OP is a bit lacking in detail to say what would be most appropriate.
If the OP isn’t happy with the police response, make a complaint. As ever, document everything you do (and how it makes you feel) at the time. Write it down, there and then. Not in a bit, not later, not in five minutes, at the time. Time and date any notes made. Document the stuff from the person messaging you, your attempts to get it resolved and any complaint if you do make one.
For the phone messages, make sure you screenshot them, because depending on the app being used, it can be possible for the sender to delete messages at both ends. At least if you have a screenshot, there’s a starting point.
Don’t respond to - or even acknowledge - the sender. It’s difficult, but best to ignore them. Obviously if you are under immediate physically cal threat, dial 999.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/10...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/secti...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/secti...
The OP is a bit lacking in detail to say what would be most appropriate.
If the OP isn’t happy with the police response, make a complaint. As ever, document everything you do (and how it makes you feel) at the time. Write it down, there and then. Not in a bit, not later, not in five minutes, at the time. Time and date any notes made. Document the stuff from the person messaging you, your attempts to get it resolved and any complaint if you do make one.
For the phone messages, make sure you screenshot them, because depending on the app being used, it can be possible for the sender to delete messages at both ends. At least if you have a screenshot, there’s a starting point.
Don’t respond to - or even acknowledge - the sender. It’s difficult, but best to ignore them. Obviously if you are under immediate physically cal threat, dial 999.
Jap90s said:
That is my understanding
I'm unsure how many death threats others get but this is a first for me
I've had 2 in the past. Both former customers that I told I didn't want to deal with any more. Both came and collected all their stuff from my premises, and were reasonably amicable, then went home, and phoned and threatened me.I'm unsure how many death threats others get but this is a first for me
On both occassions, I invited them to immediately come back, I'd be standing outside waiting to see them. Neither appeared.
I called the non-emergency number on both occassions to report it, so it was logged in case there were any further incidents.
People that are actually going to do a thing, tend not to phone you up to tell you about it first. Obviously though, there are exceptions.
WolvesWill said:
This would likely be recorded/investigated as threats to kill or malicious communications offence, rather than an assault.
It will be one of literally hundreds of such offences reported nationally to police every day, where someone threatens somebody else via telephone. I recall being told that such harassment makes up for around 20% of all recorded crime, to give you some idea.
Police can go down the route of 'cycomms' enquiries, where by they make a request to find out who is the contract holder/bill payer for that particular phone number used in the commission of a malicious communications offence, but this is not always the same as being able to definitively prove what was said and by whom during a 'threatening' phonecall (which is not recorded by the phone company since we don't live in Communist East Germany, so it often boils down to one word against the other).
Proving that a particular individual pays the bill for (or has topped up that specific phone account) is not quite the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt that a particular person sent those specific messages either, but that's going down the rabbit hole...
Do you believe that this person has capacity and genuine intent to carry out the threats, and if so, why?
How does this person know your address? What is your relationship to this person?
The answers to the above questions will help indicate whether or not there is a genuine risk of harm, and if not, the matter may not be investigated further....
Despite what much of the media suggests, policing exists is in a state of near crisis where in many areas, demand for service vastly outstrips resources, and it is not possible for every crime to be investigated to the Nth degree.
It was a courier - so he's visited my address It will be one of literally hundreds of such offences reported nationally to police every day, where someone threatens somebody else via telephone. I recall being told that such harassment makes up for around 20% of all recorded crime, to give you some idea.
Police can go down the route of 'cycomms' enquiries, where by they make a request to find out who is the contract holder/bill payer for that particular phone number used in the commission of a malicious communications offence, but this is not always the same as being able to definitively prove what was said and by whom during a 'threatening' phonecall (which is not recorded by the phone company since we don't live in Communist East Germany, so it often boils down to one word against the other).
Proving that a particular individual pays the bill for (or has topped up that specific phone account) is not quite the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt that a particular person sent those specific messages either, but that's going down the rabbit hole...
Do you believe that this person has capacity and genuine intent to carry out the threats, and if so, why?
How does this person know your address? What is your relationship to this person?
The answers to the above questions will help indicate whether or not there is a genuine risk of harm, and if not, the matter may not be investigated further....
Despite what much of the media suggests, policing exists is in a state of near crisis where in many areas, demand for service vastly outstrips resources, and it is not possible for every crime to be investigated to the Nth degree.
It was a series of texts with specifics mentioned so there is no doubt who sent them and it was a lot more specific than "I'll kill you"
I've then provided his full name and business address
Or they could just arrange a collection / delivery to a Police station of their choice !
Police resources are stretched for political/economic reasons. They have to prioritise their work, which means they will leave many punters dissatisfied. I don't for a minute believe police are any more or less lazy than an average person and most are no doubt working their tails off. Whether or not it's an easy prosecution, it would still suck up time and resources to achieve the end result of a slap on the wrist for the perp, so the question becomes, is that an appropriate use of finite resource?
That being said and taking OP's account at face value, the problem here seems to be that they have not performed an even cursory triage to try to establish how credible the threat is, meaning they are trusting to luck that it won't turn out to be a serious issue. One could argue that statistically, given all the similar calls they receive, they're correct. The cost of getting it wrong however is rather high.
That being said and taking OP's account at face value, the problem here seems to be that they have not performed an even cursory triage to try to establish how credible the threat is, meaning they are trusting to luck that it won't turn out to be a serious issue. One could argue that statistically, given all the similar calls they receive, they're correct. The cost of getting it wrong however is rather high.
Edited by Jonny Wishbone on Tuesday 7th June 12:49
Jonny Wishbone said:
That being said, the problem here seems to be that they have not performed an even cursory triage to try to establish how credible the threat is, meaning they are trusting to luck that it won't turn out to be a serious issue.
All I really need to know is whether he has a string of previous offences or whether he's just a run of the mill morongaryhun said:
Personally I’d have called 999 for a death threat.
Really? Unless it’s someone shouting at your door kicking it down it’s not a 999 call at all. Which you’d be told. OP you don’t need the offenders DOB and stuff like that. That’s for the police to find out!
I’d contact them again and explain that you aren’t happy with the reasoning for it not being investigated. Double check it’s been crimed rather than just logged as a non crime. If it has been crimed and given a crime stat you can have a victims right to review.
As others have said, it’s not an assault (use of immediate violence…if I stood at a train station face to face threatening to punch you then yes. I said I’m going to punch you out the train window as it’s leaving to London then no).
Jap90s said:
thewarlock said:
I believe a death threat falls under 'common assault'. You don't have to actually hit someone to have committed assault.
That is my understandingI'm unsure how many death threats others get but this is a first for me
Much more likely to be mal coms, threats to kill or harassment.
Jonny Wishbone said:
Police resources are stretched for political/economic reasons. They have to prioritise their work, which means they will leave many punters dissatisfied. I don't for a minute believe police are any more or less lazy than an average person and most are no doubt working their tails off. Whether or not it's an easy prosecution, it would still suck up time and resources to achieve the end result of a slap on the wrist for the perp, so the question becomes, is that an appropriate use of finite resource?
That being said and taking OP's account at face value, the problem here seems to be that they have not performed an even cursory triage to try to establish how credible the threat is, meaning they are trusting to luck that it won't turn out to be a serious issue. One could argue that statistically, given all the similar calls they receive, they're correct. The cost of getting it wrong however is rather high.
There are viable lines of enquiry to be made on this one and it certainly shouldnt be screened out at the point of report.That being said and taking OP's account at face value, the problem here seems to be that they have not performed an even cursory triage to try to establish how credible the threat is, meaning they are trusting to luck that it won't turn out to be a serious issue. One could argue that statistically, given all the similar calls they receive, they're correct. The cost of getting it wrong however is rather high.
Edited by Jonny Wishbone on Tuesday 7th June 12:49
As others have stated - this should be recorded as a Malicious Comms offence
LosingGrip said:
garyhun said:
Personally I’d have called 999 for a death threat.
Really? Unless it’s someone shouting at your door kicking it down it’s not a 999 call at all. Which you’d be told. OP you don’t need the offenders DOB and stuff like that. That’s for the police to find out!
I’d contact them again and explain that you aren’t happy with the reasoning for it not being investigated. Double check it’s been crimed rather than just logged as a non crime. If it has been crimed and given a crime stat you can have a victims right to review.
As others have said, it’s not an assault (use of immediate violence…if I stood at a train station face to face threatening to punch you then yes. I said I’m going to punch you out the train window as it’s leaving to London then no).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff