The police

Ah great - so after 4 complaints which don't result in a charge - we just ignore the call

are you being deliberately ob-fucking-tuse? I want you to collate the information that shows that someone is making falsely malicious complaints about someone. Jesus. I don't believe your in the Police. You are really too bloody bad at reading comprehension.

That's fine - so someone could make an allegation against you - and you would be happy to just receive a summons to court

if an allegation is made against me, i will engage a lawyer. i will not have any voluntary, and certainly no unaccompanied, engagements with the police. If it ends in court, I'll take my chances. But since I'm not a woman with a megaphone I'll probably be fine. If someone is making consistent malicious and untrue allegations about me and the plods do nothing? I will take action against them.

Listen. If you don't understand what i'm saying, just ask. Really it is simpler all round.

Wonder if we can do this was serial suicidal missing from homes - after the 4th call - just ignore them

Missing children from care homes - after the 4th call - there on their own!

High risk DV partners

Brefugee
Ah great - so after 4 complaints which don't result in a charge - we just ignore the call

So DV victims - so after the 4th time it doesn't result in a charge - just ignore.

Great - can't see a problem there!!

AlisonDonut
So you can guarantee that they were stood there 100% of the day. They were never distracted by anything else and they were watching her all the time?

That's great - then perhaps she can mention that in her interview.

But perhaps the OIC has statements from the two police officer already which might not say they were stood there 100% time.

This might match up with what the reporting person is saying

Real police work - so we can just ignore allegations of public order offences then? Not investigate them at all - just write them off at the at the call taker stage? Who makes that decision then?

Brefugee
me? I will never voluntary have any contact with the police. Not ever.

That's fine - so someone could make an allegation against you - and you would be happy to just receive a summons to court

So - I ask again - at what point do we ignore a serial complainer?
Go back to a bout page 3 or 4 where it was discussed, as I never got at answer to it then.

You do ignore them. You ignore the one who complains about CF all the time. The one who complains about Femme Loves (same chap, i think) all the fuckers who are at KJK constantly. It is relentless. You followed up on a report of maliciious complainant and FINED THE WOMAN WHO WAS COMPLAINING LIGITIMATELY ABOUT HER STALKER AND WAS THEN KILLED BY HIM.

How about you read and inwardly digest. Then you and your police buddies can try to work out why women don't trust you.

I don't know what you want me to say to this. One complaint? hmm. note it down. 2 complaints? joined up thinking adds them to the same file. 3 complaints? are you actually checking into the complaints? does your action depend if the complainer has their reproductive organs on the inside or the outside (my first paragraph suggests so). 4 complaints? are you starting to looking into the background and relationship between the complainer and the person they are complaining about? 5? 6? Do you want me to do your bloody job for you?

If there is no necessity to arrest someone - how do you want the police to proceed then.

Here's a thought - fuck off and do some real police work?

And stop harassing women for literally nothing.

There was a police officer STOOD NEXT TO HER ALL FUCKING DAY. If her behaviour was a public offence order would this person not have noticed at the time?

me? I will never voluntary have any contact with the police. Not ever.

You carry on with your disingenuous stuff though. It just cements my view that the police are not fit for purpose.

Brefugee · Today 10:46
They have said what the offence is on the phone call
they said something waffly. What i would expect at the very least is "you have been accused of saying 'X' on Y date". Otherwise I'm going to laugh at you. Especially given all the video evidence.

They said what the offence was - it was a public order offence. The only thing they never mentioned was the date. If they had mentioned the date then you would agree to a vol interview?

AlisonDonut
What is on the reporting persons statement then?
What was on the initial call?

Brefugee
So there was complete 100% continuity of the police being with her 100% of the time.
In that case:
What is on the reporting persons statement then?
What was on the initial call?

So - I ask again - at what point do we ignore a serial complainer?
Go back to a bout page 3 or 4 where it was discussed, as I never got at answer to it then.

It is the number of offences against them, the number of reports to police without prosecution.

And no - I won't push off with the 'rape shit' as you call it. It was raised by another poster - but I guess you can't answer the point I am asking by telling me to push off

They have said what the offence is on the phone call

they said something waffly. What i would expect at the very least is "you have been accused of saying 'X' on Y date". Otherwise I'm going to laugh at you. Especially given all the video evidence.

Precisely - so a vol interview may be more applicable here - but the offence still needs investigation. How many historically reported rapes are going to be one word against anther with no supporting evidence.

push off with the rape shit. You lot never ever fucking listen to women. But reporting against a woman? BAM! in there like greased weasel shit off a teflon shovel.

The police were literally standing next to KJK. Literally. If she had said or done something how come they didn't arrest her right away? "Thumbs up their bums and their minds in neutral" as my old Sgt Major used to say.

I have discussed 'serial complainers' previously on the thread - at what point do we ignore them etc etc And they will (and are) prosecuted for malicious complaints if it can be proven.

Also complete and utter bullshit. And guess what? The woman who was being stalked was prosecuted as a malicious complainer and her stalker killed her while plod looked on.

So again: no change. The police don't give a flying fuck about women. but are completely happy to stick the spinner on the roof and zoom off to intimidate them at their homes (or call them, whatever) on the word of a serial complainer (CF i believe has a serial complainer, as does the woman behind the Femme Loves twitter account).

They have said what the offence is on the phone call - the point is there is no need to arrest if she is willing to attend for a vol interview and bring your solicitor too.

What did she actually do to commit this offence? It's all on video on you tube so feel free to expand on what she did or said to trigger a report that warrants an investigation. Thanks in advance.

AlisonDonut
There is an allegation made against her by a reporting person. That reporting person speaks to a call taker who establishes if a crime may have occurred. If so it get passed to a cop to investigate.

In this case it was an offence under the public order act

So evidence is gathered - statements, witnesses statement, CCTV maybe etc etc

Maybe ask what it was she did, and say 'Someone says you did X, and we have the evidence on video so we will be arresting you'?

They have said what the offence is on the phone call - the point is there is no need to arrest if she is willing to attend for a vol interview and bring your solicitor too.

And she might have been wearing a BWV - great, bring that footage too - but we don't know what the specific allegation was do we on the reporting call.

Brefugee
The reason to arrest has nothing to do with the offence or its evidence - its the necessity to arrest which you need to cover to make an arrest lawful. So its got nothing to do with 'getting better evidence' You may have the grounds, but you need the necessity to do it. What if there is no other evidence to get - word on word.

It doesn't matter what the offence is and what evidence you have - burglary, theft, dropping litter, rape, fraud.......

If there is necessity to arrest, then you can't arrest. The only other option is a vol interview.

If they attend the vol interview but exercise their right to leave - then you have no power to arrest them. You can't say "This is a vol interview and you're free to leave at any point" and then arrest them can you.

If they do leave, the case will proceed to CPS with the reporting persons account as unopposed.

The only time you would consider and arrest in a vol interview is when the person mentions a further offence which there may be a necessity to arrest for - 'I've just stabbed someone prior to the interview' for example..

i don't expect the police to blindly, on the word of person B and absent any other evidence, to march in and arrest person A. That would be bizarre.

Precisely - so a vol interview may be more applicable here - but the offence still needs investigation. How many historically reported rapes are going to be one word against anther with no supporting evidence.

I have discussed 'serial complainers' previously on the thread - at what point do we ignore them etc etc And they will (and are) prosecuted for malicious complaints if it can be proven.

2plus2equals5
As discussed earlier - who judges if a person is harassed or is grossly offended by a comment. If its grossly offensive to one it may not be to another. And these will not be priority jobs for police - more of a job that's dropped down the queue to be dealt with as and when.

Also - you are not going disclose all the evidence to the person weeks before the interview. That's what the interview is for.

For example - if your house is a victim of a burglary but nothing was stolen. We're not going to inform the burglary suspect that there is CCTV of them walking down the path and we found their fingerprint on the outside of the door and the inside of a window. The burglary suspect has then got from the phone call to the interview to come up with an alibi as to why there prints are there.

MrsOvertonsWindow
An arrest is not proportionate i would say here - that's why the OIC has arranged a vol interview. But if we don't get her account can we just proceed the case court with just the account of the reporting person - as it appears this will be the only evidence with nothing to counter it.

If she attended for the vol interview and exercised her right to leave, then they can't arrest

If she just fails to attend - they may look at her failure to attend as avoiding the judicial system and a flight risk as possible grounds to arrest - but that still has to be authorised so probably not

And its not 'hurty words' as the crime does not exist
The crime being investigated here is one under the public order act - so its a crime in law

FOJN
A defence is put forward in a court of law, not a police interview room, unless our police force now also thinks they have the authority to conduct trials.

A defence can be put forward at any point. If a defence is raised, its up to police to investigate that defence before it goes to court. What if they that they were at work at the time of the offence. The police would then look to see if there are work records and witnesses at work to confirm of negate his alibi. You can't wait until the court trial to obtain this evidence - it has to be there before.

I never said a vol interview was a 'friendly chat' - its an interview under caution.
And all offences are allegations until they are proven at court.

The offence in this case is a public order offence - but a vol interview can be used for all offences from murder to dropping litter.

Unless you would prefer the reporting person's evidence to just go to the court without any attempt to interview the other party. Other party then just gets a court date to attend court. Fine by me - a lot easier for the police.

And you can't have a system where all the evidence has to gathered first before the potential suspect is interviewed and/or arrested. Would you do this for a murder suspect?

lechiffre55
Whats the bad advice?

How would you want the case to progress then.

Person A commits and offence against Person B - Person B then reports it to the police. No CCTV, witnesses or other supporting evidence available - one word against another.

Police say, well it only one word against another, so we are not going to bother.

Or

Go on what Person A says as true and just send Person B to court without their opportunity to put their side of the story across in an interview and provide evidence to show they are innocent.

DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter
Yes - we gather evidence. Both parties account is classed as evidence.

If there is no necessity to arrest someone - how do you want the police to proceed then.

A suspect burglar for example - we know who they are, there is no outstanding property, no ongoing incident, no person is put at risk - so you don't have any necessity to arrest. And there is only one person's account to identity them as the suspect - no forensics, no cctv etc etc

Should we not bother even trying to get their account in interview and just send it straight to court.

Like I say suits me as a cop - but it will tie the courts up beyond belief

MrsOvertonsWindow
And how is that video differing from what i have said?

DENNISNOELKAVANAGHOFFTWITTER !!!! Oh, shoot me now🤣

Sorry, that should have been addressed to MrsOvertonsWindow, i beg your pardon Mrs O! 🥴

Thank you for that video thedancingbear, interesting.

I am appalled that your best advice is to avoid a situation where someone might lie about you. It's the same advice women have always been given - don't get raped, basically.

You're right though, there's not much else you can say is there (I'm not criticising YOU, just, well, everything else!). Don't drink, don't wear a short skirt, don't go out at night etc etc etc always walk home in pairs don't walk home alone.......

Going to a protest? Always make sure you've take a witness with you, don't go alone.

Do good to see some sound legal advice on this thread compared to some of the self serving nonsense that's been served up on this thread self identifying as "the law".

This doesn't apply to @Felix125 because, you know, he's a good stick, like 99.8% of all other coppers...

My own view is to never attend voluntary interviews. They are ordinarily only ever offered where there are no lawful grounds for arrest and the police are aware any arrest would be unlawful. I've dealt with several cases where investigations have stopped dead where a woman has just said "no" to smiling officers "trying to get her side of the story".

That "getting your side" stuff is a mendacious subterfuge anyway, the police do not mediate amicable discussions between parties, they gather evidence during an interview in order to seek charging advice from the CPS.

I emphasise an arrest by law must be necessary. Voluntary interviews are almost always offered when no arrest is necessary and the police know they could be sued for various torts upto and including false imprisonment if they try their luck.

It follows I disagree fundamentally with some of the advice offered in this thread, if anyone needs my basic legal primer on powers of arrest it's here:

That's what I thought TheInebriati and then didn't they charge her for something due to describing the police officer she dealt with that made them identifiable through the police forces own social media. No the police are definitely not using their powers to silence women!

Surely KJK has the right to know specifically what is being alleged?

Isn't that what they did to Marion Millar? Kept her guessing about what exactly she was supposed to have said that was illegal?

@Felix125
MrsOvertonsWindow
If its a vol interview - we have no powers to seize anything from her home.

Would that "we" mean you are a police officer Felix125?
If yes that would explain why what you are saying here is such bad advice for anyone finding themselves being pestered for a voluntary interview by the police.
If you are reading this thread a police officer is the very last person who you should be relying on for advice on how to deal with these sorts of situations. Always ask for professional legal advice and representation. It is your right to be provided with professional legal advice and representation. It can only harm your situation if you do not exercise this right.

by interviewing, the person may not need to go to court if there is insufficient evidence to proceed any further after the interview - they may give a defence in interview which halts the investigation any further.

A defence is put forward in a court of law, not a police interview room, unless our police force now also thinks they have the authority to conduct trials.

By not attending for a vol interview - the grounds are still there as the offence still exists which needs investigation. The necessity may be to prevent the person avoiding capture/justice, prevent their disappearance.

It's an allegation being investigated until you can prove that an offence has been committed.

The use of defence and offence when it's not even established that a crime had been committed reinforces my belief that an involuntary interview is not just a friendly chat.

As a PP said, this approach may be appropriate for more serious crimes where the potential consequences of inaction are unacceptable but for hurt feelings it's ridiculous.

Front page headlines detailing these cases do not increase public sympathy for police complaints about budget cuts. Why would we support the police receiving more public money when they spend it behaving like the Gestapo whilst not even attending the scene of a burglary.

The point you miss Felix125 when you say "If its a vol interview - we have no powers to seize anything from her home" is that in this Orwellian world of ours, if KJK fails to attend this alleged voluntary interview for fishing purposes, the police can then arrest her and do a deep dive into her devices and presumably home in order to continue fishing. If you're looking at armed robbery, rape, child sex abuse and all manner of egregious offences that may be proportionate. For alleged hurty words - all captured on camera and therefore available to an underworked police with no real crimes to investigate - this is to most rational people , a massive overreaction.

Yepp, the SM media pronouncements (here and elsewhere) by many many police officers is why i would never ever trust one.

Was discussing with friends last time i was in the UK and each of us had independently decided not to bother reporting anything to them if we could avoid it (basically to get a crime number for insurance only).