8 ms·

Voluntary interview in the UK is basically an interview under caution where they aren't arresting you first. They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed

Voluntary interview in the UK is basically an interview under caution where they aren't arresting you first. They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't. If you decide to not bother doing the voluntary interview, arrest becomes necessary, and you get arrested. Arrests can show up on enhanced DBS checks, and are a real pain in the hole to explain to employers down the line. Hence there being a non arrest option.

ziddoap 4y ago
Makes sense, in a way. What doesn't make sense is calling that "voluntary", because it clearly isn't voluntary when the other option is be arrested.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  There are some cases where you can be invited for a voluntary interview where they haven't established enough for arrest if you refuse. Its a somewhat confusing term, but that's what they call it. Usually its made clear to you at the time which of those cases its going to be. "Look, you can come in for an interview at a time that suits both of us, or we will have to go and get you at a time that suits us. Either way, you will be interviewed."
  - dmix 4y ago
    He's being brought away in handcuffs, mandatory interview would definitely seems like a better way to communicate the seriousness.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Involuntary interview would have been a better name, but doesn't read as well in newspapers.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't. So you're fine that they "could arrest him, but won't" for a retweet of a stupid meme? Who cares by what laws or twisted logic they justify it.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  He committed an offense under the Malicious Communications act. I disagree with that law itself for a number of reasons (its fucking daft), but the correct procedure was followed here.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    He didn't commit an offense though? If he had would he have been released? He was suspected of having broken the law.
    - ziddoap 4y ago
      I'm pretty confident that nibbleshifter meant/was implying "potentially committed an offense", which under the law necessitated the investigation, and thus means that the correct procedure was followed (separate from whether or not the law or procedure is just).
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Surely they could have looked at the tweet instead of interviewing him? Once they viewed the tweet they would have discovered that it is not grossly offensive or indecent and they could have avoided this whole thing. If interviewing is required then what is to stop somebody from reporting somebody everyday and requiring the police to go out consistently?
        ziddoap 4y ago
        Those sound like excellent questions for the people who enacted the law and the people who enforce the law, or perhaps a lawyer. I'm none of the above (thank god).
openfuture 4y ago
For me this is just as ridiculous as everything else being discussed.. why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? Why all this dancing around? Because not even the police databases are secure! No one has trustworthy computers or communication technology and it is causing waaay too much drama.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  > why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? The police hand it over, is why. Not just anyone can request a DBS check, but many jobs require one.
abnry 4y ago
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
kelnos 4y ago
I think that overall process is reasonable from a policing standpoint, but calling it "voluntary"... well, I don't think that word means what the police thinks it means. If you are required to do something, or else you will get arrested, that thing is not voluntary.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  The wording of it is a bit problematic, for sure. A "voluntary interview" may or may not come with the alternative of arrest. In this particular case, it did. In some cases, it doesn't. A voluntary interview may also lead to arrest (eg: if you admit to a crime, they usually arrest you to charge you).
stjohnswarts 4y ago
shouldn't it be called involuntary interview to reflect the truth of the matter? Government sure does have a way of naming things like it's opposite day everyday.

ziddoap 4y ago

Makes sense, in a way. What doesn't make sense is calling that "voluntary", because it clearly isn't voluntary when the other option is be arrested.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
There are some cases where you can be invited for a voluntary interview where they haven't established enough for arrest if you refuse. Its a somewhat confusing term, but that's what they call it. Usually its made clear to you at the time which of those cases its going to be. "Look, you can come in for an interview at a time that suits both of us, or we will have to go and get you at a time that suits us. Either way, you will be interviewed."
- dmix 4y ago
  He's being brought away in handcuffs, mandatory interview would definitely seems like a better way to communicate the seriousness.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Involuntary interview would have been a better name, but doesn't read as well in newspapers.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't. So you're fine that they "could arrest him, but won't" for a retweet of a stupid meme? Who cares by what laws or twisted logic they justify it.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
He committed an offense under the Malicious Communications act. I disagree with that law itself for a number of reasons (its fucking daft), but the correct procedure was followed here.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  He didn't commit an offense though? If he had would he have been released? He was suspected of having broken the law.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    I'm pretty confident that nibbleshifter meant/was implying "potentially committed an offense", which under the law necessitated the investigation, and thus means that the correct procedure was followed (separate from whether or not the law or procedure is just).
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Surely they could have looked at the tweet instead of interviewing him? Once they viewed the tweet they would have discovered that it is not grossly offensive or indecent and they could have avoided this whole thing. If interviewing is required then what is to stop somebody from reporting somebody everyday and requiring the police to go out consistently?
      - ziddoap 4y ago
        Those sound like excellent questions for the people who enacted the law and the people who enforce the law, or perhaps a lawyer. I'm none of the above (thank god).

openfuture 4y ago

For me this is just as ridiculous as everything else being discussed.. why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? Why all this dancing around? Because not even the police databases are secure! No one has trustworthy computers or communication technology and it is causing waaay too much drama.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
> why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? The police hand it over, is why. Not just anyone can request a DBS check, but many jobs require one.

abnry 4y ago

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

kelnos 4y ago

I think that overall process is reasonable from a policing standpoint, but calling it "voluntary"... well, I don't think that word means what the police thinks it means. If you are required to do something, or else you will get arrested, that thing is not voluntary.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
The wording of it is a bit problematic, for sure. A "voluntary interview" may or may not come with the alternative of arrest. In this particular case, it did. In some cases, it doesn't. A voluntary interview may also lead to arrest (eg: if you admit to a crime, they usually arrest you to charge you).

stjohnswarts 4y ago

shouldn't it be called involuntary interview to reflect the truth of the matter? Government sure does have a way of naming things like it's opposite day everyday.