26th Feb 2026
Dear British Transport Police,
I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the “See It Say It Sorted” campaign. I am flagging it as something that, in the campaign’s own words, “doesn’t look right”.
Before doing so, I want to acknowledge and thank British Transport Police officers and staff for the important work you do to keep the public safe. Also the families of the victims of 7/7, and I fully support the important need for clear public information campaigns that help people to report genuine crime or urgent safety concerns, that genuinely keep people safe.
My concern relates specifically to the framing, messaging, and imagery used within this campaign.
The phrase “If you see something that doesn’t look right” is inherently vague and subjective. Encouraging members of the public to report behaviour based on what “doesn’t look right” risks legitimising unconscious bias and subjective suspicion rather than objective indicators of criminality or risk. This vagueness has two significant effects:
a) It is open to misuse.
What might look “right” or “wrong” to one individual is highly subjective and influenced by unconscious bias. Encouraging untrained members of the public to interpret behaviour and to do the work of highly trained police officers in this way, risks creating channels for discrimination, racial profiling, and potential hate-motivated reporting.
b) It contributes to a culture of suspicion.
The messaging can inadvertently promote an atmosphere of “othering”, fear, and mistrust — reminiscent of historical propaganda environments where communities were encouraged to monitor one another. That is not a healthy social dynamic for a diverse modern society.
When this messaging is combined with certain imagery used in the campaign, it can foster the perception that we should be suspicious of one another — particularly of people who appear different in terms of ethnicity, age, gender, or cultural background. Some posters portray individuals from diverse backgrounds in ways that could be interpreted as implicitly suspicious or threatening.
This is especially concerning at a time when our communities most need encouragement toward trust, cooperation, and social cohesion more than ever.
I am not suggesting any deliberate intent to create harm. Rather, I believe this reflects broader historical influences within advertising and persuasion techniques. It is well documented that modern advertising and political communication have been influenced by early theories of mass persuasion, such as those developed by Edward Bernays. My concern is about unintended psychological and social impact, not conspiracy or malice.
I believe that the campaign’s repetition, alliterative phrasing, and emotional framing has created a “drip-feed” psychological effect over time. After more than ten years of constant exposure in public spaces, it is reasonable to consider whether this messaging has contributed — even indirectly — to increased a social atmosphere of mistrust or anxiety.
Children and young people are a particular concern. Many have grown up hearing repeated public announcements implying that something around them may not be “right”. For a child commuting daily, this message may be encountered for extended periods over many years. It is difficult to believe this would have no impact on their sense of safety, wellbeing, or trust in others.
As of the time of writing this letter, the older posters are still up widely across underground and rail networks, as is the use of the older and newer (2025 rebrand) versions of the audio slogan.
While I acknowledge that some updated versions of the campaign have improved elements — for example, reducing overt suspicion between individuals of different ethnic backgrounds — the new posters are problematic for other reasons.
One example being the new poster depicting a woman hiding from a police officer with the line “Are they hiding from the authorities?” In the context of the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, this imagery feels highly culturally insensitive and distressing.
Police officers may simply not feel safe to some women in our country as is well documented. Flagging potential self protection as something that should be reported is simply immoral.
Whilst most police are safe and well intended, it shows an absolute a lack of respect and understanding for the friends and family of the victim, and the scale of violence against women in our country, which the police themselves have flagged as an emergency.
Given the national recognition of violence against women and girls as a serious societal issue, such imagery risks causing distress and undermining trust among women who may already feel unsafe.
A better campaign would encourage people to report people being made to feel unsafe or under attack surely? In fact most of the posters can be pulled apart for one reason or another - being culturally insensitive, othering, or simply designed to promote an atmosphere of fear of one another.
This campaign has been particularly insensitive in the context of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, whose family have had to live with this campaign for the past ten years.
Perhaps even failing to meet British Transport Police’s public sector equality duties under the Equality Act 2010. This includes obligations to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different groups. Messaging that may contribute to suspicion or mistrust between communities risks undermining the statutory duty to foster good relations.
It also fails to meet advertising standards that require messaging to be socially responsible, avoid causing unjustified fear or distress, and to avoid harmful stereotypes or offence. Public sector campaigns may fall outside strict ASA jurisdiction, however these standards remain widely recognised benchmarks of ethical communications practice.
While I am not alleging direct incitement to hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, the campaign’s framing risks indirectly enabling discriminatory reporting behaviours by encouraging suspicion based on subjective perception rather than behaviour. In the current social climate, public authorities must exercise heightened care to avoid messaging that could contribute to hostile environments for protected groups.
The College of Policing Code of Ethics emphasises fairness, respect, proportionality, and maintaining public confidence. Messaging that encourages citizens to monitor one another based on ambiguous suspicion risks undermining trust rather than strengthening safety.
After more than ten years of continuous exposure, the psychological and cultural impact of this campaign must be considered. I believe there is an opportunity here for British Transport Police to demonstrate real leadership and care. It’s time to put it right.
How British Transport Police Could “Put It Right”
-
Issue a public acknowledgment and formal apology, recognising concerns about the potential psychological and social impact of the campaign, particularly on young people.
-
Make a strong public commitment to “Put it Right”.
-
Re-allocate a meaningful portion of the campaign’s 2025 rebranding fee to UK children’s and young people’s mental health charities as a gesture of social responsibility.
-
Apologise to, and compensate, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, for the pain inflicted by a campaign that has encouraged wrongful racial profiling, and mistrust on the underground and our national rail networks for the past 10 years.
-
Apologise to, and compensate, the family of Sarah Everard for the cultural insensitivity of the more recent 2025 campaign.
-
Develop and run a new campaign that promotes unity, community care, and proportionate responsibility — emphasising that while vigilance is sometimes necessary, most people are well-meaning and communities are strongest when trust is maintained and we work together.
As a music and visual artist with a background in ethical marketing and campaign design, and as a responsible citizen, I would genuinely be willing to contribute ideas voluntarily.
Advertising and public messaging shape the world we believe is possible and create — and therefore carries real responsibility. One possible slogan might read:
“If you see someone in trouble, get them support” call BTP on/TXT
Better still, why not run a campaign and competition where children and young people and UK citizens at large are invited to co-create artwork and messaging that reflects the kind of transport networks and society we want to build together? Why not integrate inclusion into the campaign?
Words have power. With that power comes a duty of care.
Warm Wishes,
Stacey Cohen
Dear British Transport Police,
I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the “See It Say It Sorted” campaign. I am flagging it as something that, in the campaign’s own words, “doesn’t look right”.
Before doing so, I want to acknowledge and thank British Transport Police officers and staff for the important work you do to keep the public safe. Also the families of the victims of 7/7, and I fully support the important need for clear public information campaigns that help people to report genuine crime or urgent safety concerns, that genuinely keep people safe.
My concern relates specifically to the framing, messaging, and imagery used within this campaign.
The phrase “If you see something that doesn’t look right” is inherently vague and subjective. Encouraging members of the public to report behaviour based on what “doesn’t look right” risks legitimising unconscious bias and subjective suspicion rather than objective indicators of criminality or risk.
This vagueness has two significant effects:
a) It is open to misuse.
What might look “right” or “wrong” to one individual is highly subjective and influenced by unconscious bias. Encouraging untrained members of the public to interpret behaviour and to do the work of highly trained police officers in this way, risks creating channels for discrimination, racial profiling, and potential hate-motivated reporting.
b) It contributes to a culture of suspicion.
The messaging can inadvertently promote an atmosphere of “othering”, fear, and mistrust — reminiscent of historical propaganda environments where communities were encouraged to monitor one another. That is not a healthy social dynamic for a diverse modern society.
When this messaging is combined with certain imagery used in the campaign, it can foster the perception that we should be suspicious of one another — particularly of people who appear different in terms of ethnicity, age, gender, or cultural background. Some posters portray individuals from diverse backgrounds in ways that could be interpreted as implicitly suspicious or threatening.
This is especially concerning at a time when our communities most need encouragement toward trust, cooperation, and social cohesion more than ever.
I am not suggesting any deliberate intent to create harm. Rather, I believe this reflects broader historical influences within advertising and persuasion techniques. It is well documented that modern advertising and political communication have been influenced by early theories of mass persuasion, such as those developed by Edward Bernays. My concern is about unintended psychological and social impact, not conspiracy or malice.
I believe that the campaign’s repetition, alliterative phrasing, and emotional framing has created a “drip-feed” psychological effect over time. After more than ten years of constant exposure in public spaces, it is reasonable to consider whether this messaging has contributed — even indirectly — to increased a social atmosphere of mistrust or anxiety.
Children and young people are a particular concern. Many have grown up hearing repeated public announcements implying that something around them may not be “right”. For a child commuting daily, this message may be encountered for extended periods over many years. It is difficult to believe this would have no impact on their sense of safety, wellbeing, or trust in others.
As of the time of writing this letter, the older posters are still up widely across underground and rail networks, as is the use of the older and newer (2025 rebrand) versions of the audio slogan.
While I acknowledge that some updated versions of the campaign have improved elements — for example, reducing overt suspicion between individuals of different ethnic backgrounds — the new posters are problematic for other reasons.
One example being the new poster depicting a woman hiding from a police officer with the line “Are they hiding from the authorities?” In the context of the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, this imagery feels highly culturally insensitive and distressing.
Police officers may simply not feel safe to some women in our country as is well documented. Flagging potential self protection as something that should be reported is simply immoral.
Whilst most police are safe and well intended, it shows an absolute a lack of respect and understanding for the friends and family of the victim, and the scale of violence against women in our country, which the police themselves have flagged as an emergency.
Given the national recognition of violence against women and girls as a serious societal issue, such imagery risks causing distress and undermining trust among women who may already feel unsafe.
A better campaign would encourage people to report people being made to feel unsafe or under attack surely? In fact most of the posters can be pulled apart for one reason or another - being culturally insensitive, othering, or simply designed to promote an atmosphere of fear of one another.
This campaign has been particularly insensitive in the context of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, whose family have had to live with this campaign for the past ten years.
Perhaps even failing to meet British Transport Police’s public sector equality duties under the Equality Act 2010. This includes obligations to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different groups. Messaging that may contribute to suspicion or mistrust between communities risks undermining the statutory duty to foster good relations.
It also fails to meet advertising standards that require messaging to be socially responsible, avoid causing unjustified fear or distress, and to avoid harmful stereotypes or offence. Public sector campaigns may fall outside strict ASA jurisdiction, however these standards remain widely recognised benchmarks of ethical communications practice.
While I am not alleging direct incitement to hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, the campaign’s framing risks indirectly enabling discriminatory reporting behaviours by encouraging suspicion based on subjective perception rather than behaviour. In the current social climate, public authorities must exercise heightened care to avoid messaging that could contribute to hostile environments for protected groups.
The College of Policing Code of Ethics emphasises fairness, respect, proportionality, and maintaining public confidence. Messaging that encourages citizens to monitor one another based on ambiguous suspicion risks undermining trust rather than strengthening safety.
After more than ten years of continuous exposure, the psychological and cultural impact of this campaign must be considered. I believe there is an opportunity here for British Transport Police to demonstrate real leadership and care. It’s time to put it right.
How British Transport Police Could “Put It Right”
1. Issue a public acknowledgment and formal apology, recognising concerns about the potential psychological and social impact of the campaign, particularly on young people.
2. Make a strong public commitment to “Put it Right”
3. Re-allocate a meaningful portion of the campaign’s 2025 rebranding fee to UK children’s and young people’s mental health charities as a gesture of social responsibility.
4. Develop and run a new campaign that promotes unity, community care, and proportionate responsibility — emphasising that while vigilance is sometimes necessary, most people are well-meaning and communities are strongest when trust is maintained and we work together.
Advertising and public messaging shape the world we believe is possible and create — and therefore carries real responsibility. Why not run a campaign and competition where children and young people and UK citizens at large are invited to co-create artwork and messaging that reflects the kind of transport networks and society we want to build together? Why not integrate inclusion into the campaign?
Words have power. With that power comes a duty of care.
Warm Wishes,
[Your Name Here]