Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 17
17
Not Addressed
We heard consistent evidence highlighting the absence of an effective mechanism for reporting suspected incidents...
Conclusion
We heard consistent evidence highlighting the absence of an effective mechanism for reporting suspected incidents of TNR. This gap not only leaves victims without adequate support but also significantly undermines the UK’s capacity to monitor, assess, and respond to such threats. There is little consistency in the way police forces deal with reported TNR cases. Individuals seeking to report incidences of TNR are often referred to police departments unfamiliar with the nature and tactics of TNR, resulting in delays and inaction. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)
Government response summary AI-generated
The government's response did not address the conclusion about the absence of an effective reporting mechanism for TNR or the inconsistent way police forces handle such cases, instead providing generic information on sanctions.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government · verbatim extract
Not Addressed
1. The Government is committed to ensuring that individuals who believe they may be victims of TNR have access to clear, trusted, and effective mechanisms for reporting concerns and receiving support. The Defending Democracy Taskforce’s Review carefully considered, in consultation with CTP, how best to encourage reporting and ensure that reports are treated seriously and dealt with appropriately. 2. CTP keep the means and mechanisms for engaging and building community confidence and effective police response under continuous review. As discussed with the Committee, CTP’s assessment, developed in conjunction with the Government, is that the 999 and 101 lines are the most widely known and easily accessible means of contacting policing, ensuring that handlers can assess and provide the most appropriate level of assistance, which, when required, can be immediate. This also allows calls to be assessed and referred for further action to specialists depending on the nature of the crime – which includes state threats. 3. Existing police hotlines and reporting mechanisms also include provisions to access translators to assist callers who may not be able to communicate in English, and CTP’s work to increase awareness and confidence in reporting across policing includes outreach to and through translation services. CTP is also seeking to increase understanding of TNR among those providing translation services for policing. 4. CTP continue to work with call handlers across policing to ensure that all reports potentially including state threats are flagged to specialist teams for assessment, while also ensuring the local force takes immediate action if and where required. 5. CTP believes that introducing a bespoke reporting hotline for TNR would be duplicative and potentially cause confusion. There is a risk it might be unclear what number individuals should call and when, and such a system could undermine the clarity and effectiveness of existing mechanisms. Given the targeted and specific nature of TNR in the UK, expected call volumes would be low, and the resource investment required to establish and maintain a separate hotline would not be proportionate. 6. Moreover, a dedicated hotline risks reinforcing the perception that TNR is widespread or ubiquitous, which could inadvertently spread fear, encourage false reporting, or be misused as a surveillance tool. Our public messaging is designed to be proportionate and protective, and our reporting systems are structured to ensure that police - not the public - triage cases and assess threat levels. 7. The Government will continue to work with policing to strengthen awareness, confidence, and capability in responding to TNR, while ensuring that our approach remains proportionate, effective, and focused on protecting those most at risk.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗