Expose of West Yorkshire police force

It is an abuse of lower.

Most people are law abiding they will do what a police officer tells them as they expect them to be working within the parameters of the law.

They have run campaigns begging parents to not tell their children that of they are naughty the police will come and get them because they dont want kids to be afraid of them. They want children to see them as a friendly face they can trust and If they get lost or need help then to approach a police officer and they will help them.

And now, if an abused child runs up to the police and tells them a man in a dress assaulted her, they will stand there and tell the child it was a woman.

Its bad enough with adults but er at least have the ability internally to know the truth. And know we arent wrong. But the idea an abused child will have to call her attacker she and be gaslit like that makes me want to throw up.

I don't know Sarah - seems like an abuse of power.

Well that's what I'm going to do and I advise anyone else to do the same. I know that the police like to get you talking until you say something they can get you on.

But we can refuse to speak to them, can't we?

Yes. You can ask them if they are investigating a crime and if they aren't, you can simply say conversation over.

And isnt it a crime in itself to use your position to threaten people?

But we can refuse to speak to them, can't we?

If it is not against the law - why are the police involved.

Because the police, well, some forces more than others, have taken it upon themselves to harass members of the public over non-crime incidents. It's been suggested that the police are doing this because it's an easy way to score "policing points" than the thankless tasks of investigating burglaries and incidents of physical violence (at the lesser end of the spectrum).

Thanks Happy - so basically - if a policeperson phoned me to tell me off for 'misgendering' I could tell them that I didn't want to talk to them?

Misgendering is not a hate crime under Uk law, yet.

I'm so confused. Is it against the law to correctly sex someone?
If it is not against the law - why are the police involved.
Sorry if this has been answered, but I just don't understand.

Nevertheless, all police officers should have a basic understanding of the EA because they provide a public function so are themselves bound by it in the way they treat the public.

This.

Pam - do you think you could summarise what you've being saying here on the Regulatory Capture thread? (Please nicely thank you!)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

Maria Miller recommending changes to the law

I should have said 'law and practice'.

Remember, the Select Committee was not only making recommendations about the GRA. I think that there were 34 other recommendations for the Home Office and Department of Health and others. Those ministers didn't need to wait for revisions to the GRA to be passed by parliament, they could do it with a stroke of a pen via statutory instruments.

If we are talking about regulatory capture then this complex area in Whitehall really needs illuminating. Questions like the ones @jacky is asking (how did we get here, who was involved in the statutory consultation, how was the law changed, who wrote the guidance, why, why, why?) have to be investigated. Possibly Faircop are on to this?

While we have quite rightly focussed on the GRA, we have little idea about went on behind closed doors in Whitehall to bring in self i/d by stealth.

How does one live as a man or vice versa?
As far as I can tell so far, it comes down to whether your bills are addressed to "Mr" or "Ms", and the marker on your driving license and passport. Yet to spot any other distinguishing pattern.

I've just had a look at the PACE Code, thank-you for highlighting PamAyres, and what a load of bollocks

Cheers.

Ever since I joined the forum I've been trying to point out that the law-makers in Parliament and the legal advisers in Government departments have been hard at work since before 2003.

Statutory instruments (Executive and Ministerial orders) mean that Ministers can insert 'transgender identity' or 'gender identity' or even, god help us, 'non-binary, into an existing law quietly.
Their get-out is to say that there has been a statutory consultation ie a Select Committee chaired by Maria Miller recommending changes to the law. .

It's an absolute fucking outrage that all the abusive messages this woman received from this prick were treated as nothing while it was her who was contacted and 'advised'. Especially as the messages were sent in the immediate aftermath of her ditching him and he knows her address. We all know this is an extremely dangerous time for any woman who's had the bad fortune to end up with one of these arseholes.

Exactly. I'll add a comment by R0 and my response from the Coercion thread. I lost my temper on this thread yesterday!

R0 Entitled, manipulative and dangerous such as those grown men who are accessing girls and women's changing rooms because they want to and have found using a made up concept (non-binary) protects them from being correctly identified as exhibiting unsafe behaviour.

Me Yes. Also: see the thread about the phone call to WYP (about a phonecall from WYP). Recently a police force has been warned because it fined a woman for wasting police time about her escalating ex, who subsequently murdered her. Abusive males have always weaponised authorities (police, family courts, etc) as abuse proxies. And yet police are now blind to this all over again because "I identify as" - if it's changing police perceptions as well as our perceptions, it's dangerous. Women will be hurt. Some may even die.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3595379-Can-we-stop-being-obedient-soon-or-will-this-coercion-continue-for-evermore

I've just had a look at the PACE Code, thank-you for highlighting PamAyres, and what a load of bollocks.

if there are grounds to doubt that the preference in (i) accurately reflects the person’s predominant lifestyle, for example, if they ask to be treated as a woman but documents and other information make it clear that they live predominantly as a man, or vice versa, they should be treated according to what appears to be their predominant lifestyle and not their stated preference

How does one live as a man or vice versa?

Good morning, PencilsInSpace

I wholeheartedly agree ... something is very wrong here. PACE is a law governing the behaviour of police officers. It does not govern the behaviour of the public.

ZebrasAreBras kindly provided the relevant reference above which, when you read it applies to physical searches when a "transgender" person is detained which, incidentally and curiously, also includes transvestites:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729842/pace-code-c-2018.pdf [pages 92 & 93 of PDF].

It is a curiosity as to why some police officers seem to have taken it upon themselves to try to enforce the behaviour they are required to adopt when detaining someone upon the general public when there is no law that gives them the power to do this.

Jacky, there's also the new police trans guidance I linked to upthread. It was written in partnership with Stonewall, LGBT Police Network and the Police Superintendent's Association.

medium.com/@JonnnyBest/believe-in-innate-gender-or-else-say-the-police-4237baf692da

www.lgbtpolice.uk/resources

TBH I haven't looked at this guidance since last November when it was first reported but I bet there's some relevant bobbins in there.

I think the 'hate incident' stuff is also relevant. That's what Harry and friends are challenging in their fair cop campaign I believe. It wasn't mentioned in this recording but I bet this is at least part of the reason she was contacted.

Does anybody know the legal standing of 'hate incidents'? Are they part of the hate crime legislation itself or just part of some 'best practice' guidance written at the behest of lobbying organisations?

I was frustrated with this recording because there were some important questions not asked:

Has my refusal to call my abusive ex 'she' been recorded as a hate incident?
Will this show up on a DBS?
Is it a crime to refer to my abusive ex as 'he', regardless of how he identifies?
If not, why was I contacted and 'advised'?
What guidance was the officer following when he did this?
What training have WYP had on psychological abuse, coercive control and stalking?
What guidance do WYP use on how to recognise this kind of abuse and how potential victims should be treated?
Who wrote it?
What does it say about my particular situation?

It's very easy to think what I would have done though when it's not me in this situation. I'd have been terrified if I'd gone through what this woman did.

It's an absolute fucking outrage that all the abusive messages this woman received from this prick were treated as nothing while it was her who was contacted and 'advised'. Especially as the messages were sent in the immediate aftermath of her ditching him and he knows her address. We all know this is an extremely dangerous time for any woman who's had the bad fortune to end up with one of these arseholes.

Something has gone badly wrong.

It's not generally the fault of individual officers (although some seem to relish their role in this shitfest and from what she said, this might be the case here) - their job is to uphold the law, they don't write it. I imagine there are very few opportunities for ordinary officers to even question the guidance they are given.

We absolutely do need to challenge stuff like this but we need to be smart about it and take the time to pinpoint exactly where the problem is. That way we know exactly which bit of legislation or guidance to challenge and can work out the best way to go about it.

Any such legal amendment has had no impact on the civil laws that are the GRA 2004 or the Equality Act 2010.

This is beginning to look like utter incompetence at the level of UK law-making.

The law was amended "after statutory Consultation"

What "statutory consultation"? Among which people was this "consultation" undertaken and when? And how was any law amended? Which law was amended?

the 2017 Revised Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Code C (detention and treatment), Annexe L (Trans detainees).

The law was amended "after statutory Consultation" to include trans identifying people who did not have a GRC.

So, essentially self ID has become law via the back door?

And none of that answers the question about who has given our police services such advice?

I am not disputing you theOtherPamAyres. I am asking from whom has our Police Services obtained such information, especially since it disregards current status of civil law and thus creates this conflict at the intersection between the two?

My question still stands: from what source is our police services receiving such advice?

In short, Parliament. It's not "advice" it's law.

The longer version (and I'm only skimming the surface because I'm weary of repeating this information on topics about the police)

the 2017 Revised Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Code C (detention and treatment), Annexe L (Trans detainees).

The law was amended "after statutory Consultation" to include trans identifying people who did not have a GRC.

There will be more revisions in 2019.
I think the Women's and Equality Committee prompted the changes.

In 2011, section 146 Criminal Justice Act 2003 was amended to include the term 'transgender identity' in hate crimes.
I've no idea how the term sprang into being, fully formed.

That's all your getting unless you want a boring essay

Note to self: book mark my previous posts on the police & equality Act; the police and hate crime; protected characteristics; the direction to 'crack down on transphobia' and the stealthy moves to 'transgender identity' in directions to the police since 2003.

I'm relying on the Fair Cop case to reveal this fact.