In yet another instance that seems to defy all logic, two Greater Manchester Police detectives were dispatched to a grandmother’s house—not to arrest a criminal or follow up on a serious lead—but to discuss a Facebook post she made. Her crime? Daring to criticize local Labour councillors on social media.
The incident has sparked outrage online and reignited the debate about police resources being wasted on what many consider to be “fool’s errands.” As a former police officer, I find this scenario both infuriating and deeply concerning. Not because the officers did anything wrong—they were simply following orders—but because this highlights a much larger systemic failure in how we police free speech and handle public complaints.
When Opinions Become Police Matters
This wasn’t a case of harassment, threats, or hate speech. It was simply a local resident expressing her dissatisfaction with elected officials. Yet, instead of brushing it off or handling it through proper democratic channels, someone—presumably offended—reported it to the police. And rather than dismissing this trivial complaint, the system allowed it to escalate to the point where detectives were knocking on someone’s door over a Facebook post.
This isn’t just absurd—it’s dangerous. It sets a precedent where opinions, no matter how benign, can be policed if someone is offended enough to report them. More importantly, it ties up valuable police resources that could be better spent tackling real crimes.
Not the Officers’ Fault—But the System’s
Let me be clear: this isn’t about blaming the individual officers involved. These detectives likely didn’t want to be there any more than the grandmother wanted them on her doorstep. They would have much rather been chasing down burglars, investigating assaults, or focusing on the types of serious crimes that the public expects the police to address.
The problem lies within the system itself—a system that has become too willing to entertain complaints that, frankly, should never involve law enforcement.
The Danger of Anonymous Complaints
One of the biggest issues here is the ability for individuals to file anonymous complaints about social media posts. If someone is going to accuse another person of wrongdoing, especially over something as trivial as a Facebook post criticizing public officials, they should be willing to put their name to it. Anonymous complaints foster a culture of cowardice, where people can weaponize victimhood without facing any accountability.
If a public figure can’t handle a bit of criticism, especially one that comes with the job, then perhaps they should reconsider their role in public office. Criticism—sometimes harsh—is part and parcel of democracy. Elected officials are there to serve the public, and the public has every right to voice their dissatisfaction without fearing a police visit.
Wasting Police Resources on “Non-Crime Hate Incidents”
This isn’t an isolated incident. Across England and Wales, police forces deal with an estimated 12,000 to 13,000 non-crime hate incidents every year. According to recent reports, each of these incidents takes an average of five hours to process, amounting to a staggering 66,000 police hours annually. That’s the equivalent of employing over 2,000 officers full-time for an entire week.
And for what? To investigate social media posts? To knock on doors because someone made a sarcastic comment online?
Meanwhile, violent crime rates are rising, sexual assaults are spiraling out of control, and burglary clearance rates remain dismal. Every hour spent investigating hurt feelings on social media is an hour not spent solving real crimes or protecting the public.
The Flawed Origins of Non-Crime Hate Incidents
The concept of “non-crime hate incidents” has its roots in the 1999 Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, which initially recommended recording all racist incidents to prevent escalation. While well-intentioned, this concept has been taken far beyond its original scope. In 2014, the College of Policing expanded the definition to include any incident perceived as hateful, even if no crime was committed.
This means that if someone feels targeted or offended—regardless of context—it can be logged as a non-crime hate incident, potentially impacting the accused person’s record and future employment prospects.
The Chilling Effect on Free Speech
This escalation of policing hurt feelings has had a chilling effect on free speech. People are increasingly afraid to voice their opinions online, fearing they might offend someone and end up with a police record. This isn’t the mark of a healthy democracy—it’s a warning sign of one in decline.
Criticism, debate, and even heated arguments are all part of a functioning democratic society. The idea that people can’t even express dissatisfaction with their elected officials without police intervention is deeply troubling.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It’s time for a serious conversation about how we allocate police resources and how we handle social media complaints. Policing should focus on protecting the public from genuine threats—not investigating Facebook posts.
We need to:
- Scrap or drastically reform the policy on non-crime hate incidents to ensure police only intervene when a genuine crime has been committed.
- End the practice of anonymous complaints for non-criminal matters. If you’re offended by something someone said online, have the courage to stand by your complaint publicly.
- Hold supervisors accountable for approving wasteful investigations like this one. Detectives should be focused on solving crimes—not playing social media monitors.
A Final Thought
If we continue down this path, we risk turning the police into little more than referees for online squabbles, while real criminals run free. That’s not what the public wants, and it’s certainly not what the police signed up for.
When police get sent on fool’s errands, we all lose. It’s time to stop the madness and let common sense prevail.
