The UCPI HOC is a manipulative disgrace. The questionnaire has not been published because the HO hope in vain this will restrict a collective response from #Spycops victims, and allow the perpetrators and their friends and colleagues to drown out their voices.

This is a symptom of the groupthink that that since 1964 got Labour into this political policing mess. I will have nothing to say to the HO about Tranche 4 other than you MUST do & ONLY do what the Non State Core Participants tell you to.  

I will however have thoughts on, and skin in, the other unfinished business. In the absence of a published questionnaire, and to aid my thinking, I commissioned this simulation from Chat GPT. I am publishing it here because it may help you  marshall your own thoughts since it will be inportant for everyone to respond but it may be quite a rush...

THE CONSULTATION ENDS ON AUGUST 20!

But don’t respond to the HO till you hear from the

UCPI Non State Core Particpants

Large Language Model AI Simulated Questionnaire

So dont get too invested, and check details on the UCPI Web Page

 

MH Prompt: Questions asked in the home office consultation on the UCPI 

The Home Office consultation itself does not reproduce the questionnaire on the GOV.UK page; it links to an online survey. However, the consultation document and ministerial statement make clear the topics respondents are being asked to address.

The consultation asks respondents to give their views on:

The future structure of the UCPI

Should the remaining work continue as a statutory public inquiry, or should another model be adopted?

The scope of the remaining work

Which outstanding issues should remain within the Inquiry?

Should any areas be deprioritised or removed?

The format for completing the Inquiry

How should the remaining work be carried out?

What methods would best deliver answers and recommendations?

Priorities

Which aspects of the remaining Terms of Reference should be dealt with first?

Alternative approaches

Are there different ways the Inquiry could fulfil its remaining objectives?

Balancing competing considerations

Respondents are asked to consider:

• fairness to victims and those affected;
• transparency;
• public confidence;
• proportionality of cost;
• proportionality of duration;
• the ability of different approaches to produce meaningful recommendations.

Open comments

Any additional observations or recommendations on the future of the Inquiry.

The consultation also asks respondents whether they would be willing to take part in follow-up discussions with the Home Office.

 

MH Prompt: Is there a word limit on free text?

The Home Office consultation documents do not specify any word or character limit for the free-text responses.

However, the online consultation appears to use a standard survey platform that supports configurable limits. If the Home Office has used a standard multi-line comment box without imposing its own restriction, the technical limit is typically up to 20,000 characters (roughly 3,000–3,500 words). The survey designer can choose a lower limit, but if they have done so it should be displayed next to the text box or you will receive a warning as you approach it.

MH Prompt: By September when the response to the consultation will bee known what UCPI terms of reference remains will need to be to completed what Tranches, Phases and Modules will be incomplete.

Assuming the Government announces its decision in Autumn 2026 (likely September), and assuming Sir John Mitting retires after publishing his report on the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) as the consultation envisages, then the position under the Terms of Reference is as follows.

Work completed

• Module 1 – Factual investigations into undercover policing
• Tranche 1: SDS 1968–1982 ✔ Complete
• Tranche 2: SDS 1983–1992 ✔ Complete
• Tranche 3: SDS 1993–2007 ✔ Complete (following Sir John's final SDS report)

Work still to be completed

Tranche 4

• National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), 1999–2011
• Undercover deployments

Tranche 5

• All other undercover policing units from 1968 onwards.
• Regional forces.
• Specialist units outside the SDS and NPOIU.
• Their management, supervision and legal framework.

 

Module 2 – Management and oversight

Although Module 2 runs across all tranches, the remaining work would be:

Tranche 4 (NPOIU), 1999–2011

• National Public Order Intelligence Unit
• Undercover deployments
• Management
• Authorisation
• Oversight
• Role of ACPO and other policing bodies
• Relationships with other agencies
• Findings and recommendations still outstanding.

Tranche 5

• Their management, supervision and legal framework.

 Module 3

This entire module would remain unbfinished.

Module 3 examines:

• current undercover policing;
• present governance;
• legislation;
• codes of practice;
• oversight;
• regulation;
• what reforms are required for the future.
• The consultation specifically identifies Module 3 (current and future undercover policing practices) as remaining work.
• Terms of Reference not yet fulfilled
• Looking beyond the Inquiry's internal structure to the Terms of Reference themselves, the principal outstanding elements would be:
• Investigation of the NPOIU.
• Investigation of all other undercover policing outside the SDS.
• Examination of current undercover policing practices.
• Examination of the adequacy of today's legal, regulatory and oversight framework.
• Final recommendations for reform.
• Final conclusions on the remaining agencies and policing bodies.