The Police's Two Streams: Public Accounts, Strategic Communication, and Closed Corps Spirit

Review of the police's public social media, communication budget, and framework agreement for strategic communication, contrasted with the closed Facebook group UMF where thousands of police officers spread mockery against critics and women.

Summary: The police engage with the public through approximately 280 official accounts, local news feeds, and campaigns. Meanwhile, thousands of police officers and police students have gathered in the closed Facebook group UMF, where journalistic investigations have documented mockery of critics, women, and demonstrators. Between these two spaces lies a communication apparatus that can be quantified: 190 employees in the communications department in 2019, a mixed operating budget of just under 405 million kronor, and a framework agreement for strategic communication worth up to 56 million kronor over four years. Public communication can be both accurate and beneficial to society. The question is what falls outside the picture when trust is also an explicit communication goal.

Social media is part of the police's ongoing contact with the public. On polisen.se, the official accounts are described as channels for dialogue, crime prevention information, and security. In February 2025, researcher Jens Alvén Sjöberg stated in Polistidningen that the authority then had about 280 official accounts. On the same platform, UMF had around 5,000 members when Expressen exposed the group in 2013 and more than 7,700 when Aftonbladet revisited it in 2020.

The investigation follows the distance between these spaces. Outwardly, the communication is meant to create security, explain the work, and attract more to the profession. Internally, the material from UMF shows a harsh jargon and a collegial loyalty where those who dissent risk facing strong opposition. It is this contrast—not a suspicion against every police officer or every official post—that is the core of the article.

The Public Flow: News, Thanks, and "The Person Behind the Uniform"

The police list national accounts on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitch. The authority states that social media should increase dialogue, spread crime prevention tips, and sometimes ask the public for help. The accounts should not be used for alarms or reports. This is a factual framework. The practice is broader.

The ESO report Ingen reklam tack (2021) describes police communication as primarily trust-building: factual information about crime and work, but also proactive informing about what the authority does, media training of spokespersons, and recruitment campaigns. Interviewees in the report say it is important to provide "the police's perspective" on events and to correct misunderstandings. One of them rejects the notion that it would be "putting lipstick on a pig." The report simultaneously notes Stefan Holgersson's older criticism: that the police can act proactively to adjust information and conceal the negative.

Alvén Sjöberg, who researches the police's security-building in social media, says in 2025 that "getting close to citizens" is not enough as a strategy. He describes how official accounts often pump out information, while so-called influencer police on Instagram and TikTok mix official messages with uniform photos, political posts, vacations, and sometimes paid collaborations. In people's eyes, he says, the police are perceived as a unit. One mistake then becomes everyone's mistake. The ambition to show the person behind the uniform clashes with the symbols that are supposed to carry the trust of the entire force.

The local flow is clearly visible in Värnamo. In Värnamo Nyheter—the article is partly based on traffic statistics for 2017–2019—local police area chief Håkan Boberg says that not a day goes by without tips or requests about traffic. "As soon as the police make a post on Facebook about various traffic initiatives, the comments come in. Applause in most cases." Traffic group's chief Peter Fransson summarizes the meeting with the public: "Remarkably often, people thank us—'thank you, I needed this'."

This is an understandable image of everyday policing, but also an example of how a local flow builds trust. Traffic control becomes visible, comments provide quick feedback, and appreciation gets more space than conflicts. The result is not necessarily misleading. It is edited in the same way as all strategic communication: certain parts of the operation are selected to carry the image of the whole.

The Numbers: Personnel, Operating Budget, and PR Agreement

The Police Authority does not report a separate item for social media. Appropriation 1:1 Police Authority is proposed in the budget bill for 2026 to just over 48.4 billion kronor. This amount includes external services, investigation, IT, premises, and communication. A designated figure for Facebook and Instagram is not available in the annual report. However, it is possible to substantiate the personnel strength, a broad cost item, and the external agreements for strategic communication.

ESO states that in 2019, the communications department had an average of 190 employees (160 full-time equivalents). BESTA statistics show an increase from 99 to 187 employees from 2006 to 2019. The proportion of communicators was 0.6 percent of the agency, below the average for government administration. Approximately one-third of the communications activities consisted of press officers and press secretaries. The national media center operated around the clock. The same report notes that the police do not specify communication costs, but the item "travel, representation, information, etc." in the annual report was just under 405 million kronor. Representation, travel, and information are grouped together. The figure indicates that information costs are not invisible, just unspecified.

In addition to the staff, there is agency support. In July 2025, Resumé reported that the Police Authority procured strategic communication services in a framework agreement worth up to 56 million kronor over four years, estimated at approximately 10 million kronor per year. No volume was guaranteed. The hourly rate was fixed: 1,400 kronor, regardless of role or seniority. The agreement runs for two years with the possibility of two one-year extensions. The assignment includes brand strategy, analysis, campaign production, internal communication, management support, digital communication, and graphic design. Reference assignments were to demonstrate experience in changing attitudes among broad target groups and working with earned media.

Prime held the assignment before 2019, and Gullers Grupp took over that year. In November 2025, the new framework agreement was awarded to BBDO Nordics, according to Dagens Opinion and Resumé. Eleven agencies showed interest, and five reached the final round. Prime and Gullers did not participate. Since the hourly rate was fixed, the procurement was decided based on assessed quality. The first campaign within the new collaboration was launched in March 2026: "Not all police officers wear uniforms, yet". The campaign downplays the traditional uniform and highlights empathy, courage, patience, and decisiveness to broaden the image of who can become a police officer, including women and people with foreign backgrounds.

Ten million per year in agency support is not the entire communications machinery. It is the part that is outsourced to shape messages. The staff, the 280 accounts, media training, and ongoing production are additional. ESO's point remains: the state measures followers, not whether communication makes power more scrutinizable.

PR Dilemma: Information or Branding?

An authority with a monopoly on violence has a legitimate need to reach out. The public needs to know how to report, where a perpetrator is being sought, and what frauds are ongoing. This is not PR in a derogatory sense. The dilemma arises when the same channels are also meant to build trust, attract applicants to police training, and provide "the police's perspective" on interventions that are already contested.

ESO summarizes three purposes for three authorities: the police build trust, higher education competes, the Children's Ombudsman shapes opinion. For the police, trust is both a goal and a metric. When the goal is for the public to trust the force, negative information becomes a communication problem, not just a supervisory issue. Holgersson's criticism, as reported by ESO, is that the adjustment can become systematic. The police's own interviewees respond that transparency is a requirement of the governing document. Therein lies the central tension: communication must both protect trust and allow space for what can damage it.

The difference lies in the selection. Information attempts to explain an event and show what is known and uncertain. Brand communication selects the characteristics and situations that should shape the image of the organization. When the same authority is responsible for both, public communication must therefore be read alongside judgments, supervision, research, and journalism—not as a replacement for them.

The Closed Flow: UMF 2013 and 2020

In 2013, Expressen revealed that approximately 5,000 police officers were part of UMF. The group was started in February 2012 by eight police officers, in connection with union work around social media. Only police officers and police students were admitted. The chairperson of the Police Union, Lena Nitz, was a member from the start. She stated that the posts were unacceptable and that she was ashamed. The National Police Commissioner, Bengt Svenson, called the language unworthy of adults but stated that the forum was beyond his responsibility.

The group was not disbanded after the revelation. Aftonbladet reported in 2020 that UMF then had more than 7,700 members, including retired police officers. In connection with Black Lives Matter, demonstrators were dismissed as "criminal immigrant youths" and "suburban hooligans." A colleague who kneeled in uniform was compared to performing a Nazi salute. A member who had previously been reassigned for racist remarks described immigrants as "the dark force." Community police officer Nadim Ghazale stated that most do not think that way, but few have the energy to engage in debate within the group: "you get eaten alive, they are too loud." He also pointed out the focus of this investigation: police officers on social media are still police officers, even in a turtleneck.

The same platform, two rooms. In one, applause for traffic initiatives. In the other, racially coded mockery.

What Westman saw in the backroom

Police officer and criminologist Johanna Westman published The Uniformed Reality's Police Perspective in 2015 at Linnaeus University. She was a member herself and analyzed how police officers represented themselves when no outsiders were listening. In February 2015, the group had 5,469 members. About 30 percent of those commenting were women, but only just over 10 percent of the posts were written by women.

She describes the dominant image as the uniformed reality's police perspective: a battle between the police and "the troublemakers," media, politicians, criminologists, and their own leadership. Real police work involves interventions and weapons. Collegiality is a united front. The slogan she recounts is that there is only one color: blue. When colleagues shoot, they are praised. When the media scrutinizes, it becomes a "witch hunt." One voice articulates the esprit de corps directly: "Esprit de corps, collegiality, and open dialogue, absolutely." Westman's point is that the openness was high towards the outside world and low towards those who broke from the collective. Criticism was systematically dismissed.

In April 2026, Stefan Holgersson wrote in Polistidningen that police officers created internal chat groups for what cannot be said openly. He describes the silence as the price for belonging to "the blue team." The Facebook group is not the only form. The logic is the same.

Women: target outwardly, invisible colleague inwardly

Expressen's first article showed that the hatred towards critics was not gender-neutral. Elisabet Höglund was called "demented," "witch," and "mummy in a clown wig." Lawyer Kerstin Koorti, who represented the widow of the 69-year-old man shot in Husby, was wished into hostage situations. Johanna Langhorst and Eva Franchell were dismissed as filth that smells bad. A young female journalist was met with comments that her father was probably proud of his girl. Male critics were mocked as clowns or Santa Claus. Female critics were mocked as bodies.

Westman shows that the same perspective was turned inward. Male shootings were praised. A filmed female dog handler with a baton was called "bananas" and told she should not be a police officer. A thread about sexual harassment was dismissed as compliments. The masculinity norm was rarely stated outright and therefore not challenged.

Arian Rostami's dissertation, reported in Polistidningen 2024, shows that 44 percent of the female police officers in the study experienced gender-based harassment, often jokes about #MeToo. Lundgren and Wieslander describe in the same year in Police Quarterly how collegial loyalty and the need for acceptance in male networks can reduce the likelihood of reporting. Here, the internal culture meets external recruitment. The BBDO campaign in 2026 aims to lower the threshold for women seeking the profession, while research shows the obstacles women may face once they are there.

When the first version becomes the norm

Expressen's material from UMF shows a recurring irritation when a police officer's statements alone are not sufficient as evidence: "Are a police officer's observations no longer enough, do you need another witness???" District courts were called playgrounds and lay judges "sleepyheads." This does not say anything certain about how each member acted in service, but it shows resistance to the control that the court's evidence evaluation entails.

A police report is not submitted under oath, but it can have significant implications for how a case develops. The provision on misconduct in Chapter 20, Section 1 of the Penal Code protects individuals against errors and arbitrariness in the exercise of authority. Therefore, the first documentation plays a role, especially when other witnesses or recordings are lacking.

The Supreme Court in 2025 examined police misconduct in two cases. The Public Prosecutor's Office's guidance 2025:06 reminds that the provision is intended to protect individuals against arbitrariness. In February 2026, according to Polistidningen, a police officer was charged for interrupting a victim's testimony about rape. This charge also revolves around an early stage: what information is included in the initial documentation.

A proven misconduct: the report that was rewritten

On March 13, 2012, the Jönköping District Court convicted Uno Lennart Emanuel Strand of misconduct, sentencing him to 40 day fines of 200 kronor each, plus a crime victim fund fee. He was a police officer with the then police authority in Jönköping County and resided in Värnamo. The case number is B 1128-11. The prosecutor was Chief Prosecutor Monica Mimer at the National Unit for Police Cases. According to the diary, the verdict was appealed; the outcome in the Court of Appeal is not included in this material.

The incident, according to the district court: on December 10, 2010, Strand and his colleague Sofie Hallberg stopped Labinot Mula, suspected of unauthorized driving with a deregistered car. Mula broke free and ran. Strand pursued on foot, drew his service pistol, chambered a round, and fired a shot towards a grassy area. No one was injured. Mula was later apprehended.

The legal significance lies not only in the shot fired. It is also about what was documented afterward. In the report related to the incident, Strand described a warning shot: he shouted "stop or I'll shoot," waited, and fired towards a ditch 50–100 meters from the fleeing suspect. He provided similar information during an interrogation on April 12, 2011. Colleague Hallberg stated in interrogation that Strand said he had fired a warning shot. Only on May 31, 2011, and later in court, did Strand claim it was an accidental discharge. He explained that the report was inaccurate. He found the incident embarrassing because he had made a procedural error as a police officer. He wrote "warning shot" instead of "accidental discharge" because "he thought it was better."

The district court did not find it proven that the shot was an intentional warning shot. The majority assumed it was an accidental discharge but still convicted him of misconduct: the circumstances did not require heightened readiness, the suspicion was unauthorized driving, Mula was, according to Strand himself, 50–100 meters ahead of him, and the weapon was handled carelessly. The act was not minor. One lay judge dissented and wanted to convict for an intentional warning shot, partly because the initial report, the interrogation, and the point of impact indicated intent. The Personnel Responsibility Board at the National Police Board assessed that Strand would not be dismissed if convicted according to the indictment.

The case illustrates how much can depend on the initial documentation. The first document stated "warning shot." The later statement said "accidental discharge," with the explanation that an embarrassing procedural error had been concealed. The district court evaluated the statements against each other and convicted for misconduct, not perjury. The Strand case remains as a concrete example of why a police report must be verifiable against later statements and other evidence.

What the Reader Should Do with the Two Streams

Those who only follow the police's official accounts see presence, gratitude, and recruitment. Those who only read UMF quotes see hate. Both excerpts are incomplete. The public accounts are guided by communication goals; the closed group by its own group dynamics. Judgments, oversight decisions, research, and recorded documents are needed to evaluate both perspectives.

Therefore, the review is connected to practical matters: film when it is legal, what is important when you are subjected to police actions, and read report statistics. For those who see the pattern from within, the channel is documentation, the whistleblower law and the Parliamentary Ombudsman – not a new closed group.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does the police spend on social media and PR?
There is no earmarked post for social media in the annual report. What can be substantiated includes, among other things, 190 employees in the communications department in 2019, a mixed operating post for travel, representation, and information amounting to just under 405 million kronor during the same period, and a framework agreement for strategic communication up to 56 million kronor over four years, estimated at approximately 10 million kronor per year. The agreement went to BBDO after Prime and Gullers Group. The first campaign in the collaboration was launched in March 2026.

Where is the line between information and PR?
Crime prevention information and alerts are governmental duties. The PR element becomes evident when the same channels are also used to change attitudes, strengthen the brand, and recruit. These are explicit parts of the police's strategic communication work.

What does the UMF material show about evidence?
It shows an environment where some participants reacted strongly when police observations were questioned. This is relevant for understanding the esprit de corps, but a police report and a sworn testimony are legally different things.

Does UMF still exist?
The group existed in 2013 with about 5,000 members and in 2020 with more than 7,700. Holgersson describes internal chat groups in 2026 for what is not said openly. The platform can change. The logic of loyalty does not necessarily have to.

Sources