Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035729
I note you seek access to the following information:
Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
Regarding the flag in this tweet: (Link Redacted)
MPS claimed to have spoken to those holding the flag. For this specific encounter:
Please share
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.
Please find below information pursuant to your request above.
Q1 - Who, other than those with the flag, were consulted to confirm the flag was legal?
The flag picture was subject to review by the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) to confirm the initial assessment.
Q2 - Any notes taken at the time, or any policing documentation made following the police encounter with these individuals.
The unit were advised that officers had spoken to the flag carriers but in any case this didn’t form part of any assessment as to the nature of the flag.
Q3 - How was it determined that no offence had been committed?
By detectives viewing the view flag through CCTV and confirming that the flag is a general Islamic article of faith and its display is not a criminal offence.
Q4 - Filenames & email titles regarding this encounter, including the decision to specifically tweet about it.
It is unclear what you require in relation to this question and clarification should have been requested, however we taken this request mean who has approved this tweet and it has been confirmed that the Gold lead was DAC Matt Ward and they had oversight of all communication, however this doesn’t necessarily mean that DAC Ward signed off every Tweet.
Incidentally, if you were asking regarding all emails and tweets in relation to this incident that would result in a cost refusal as many people could have been involved in this process. For example I would need to contact a number of units across the MPS including Public Order and Operational Support, local boroughs, our Press unit to name a few, they would then need to contact all officers who would potentially be involved in this which would take a considerable amount of time.