The police

Home should be "moan " btw .

vestofabsurdity

I cannot even begin to tell you . I have high blood pressure now and I swear it's this job . It gives me the rage on so many levels . I aren't a compliant type and I question decisions often - and I do refuse to do anything I believe is not lawful so I am very often on the naughty step. It is incredibly stressful.

I used to home in the 90s about political correctness gone mad and watch Ben Elton and take the piss but seriously- this IS political correctness gone mad . When servants of the crown are used in this way - this isn't what I signed up for.

No, it's not what you signed up for and it's not what the public want either, it must frustrate the merry hell out of you.

I
For one will
Welcome the decision to stop recording non crime hate incidents.

It has never ever sat well with me that someone who has committed no crime is labelled a "suspect" on our system because of a view or an opinion.

The issue has been that the government has insisted these incidents be recorded and waved NCRS crime recordable statistics in our faces . I'm so so
Glad Harry millar challenged it and won . It's ridiculous. Why are we keeping data on people who committed nothing but to have an opinion?
I have an opinion! I'm not a
Criminal . The police are being misused. And that annoys me and what annoys me more is the way we just accept it and follow the herd . I'm sure to be a
Good police
Officer we need an investigative mind set . But only when it suits .

Do you know what really annoys me is I've refused before now to record anything on some of these issues and the bean pushers in audit and governance have sent it back insisting I create an investigation. And then - low and behold - when I quote the actual letter of the law they go "ok then "

How many non crimes are being created needlessly?

I used to home in the 90s about political correctness gone mad and watch Ben Elton and take the piss but seriously- this IS political correctness gone mad . When servants of the crown are used in this way - this isn't what I signed up for .

@Justasmallgless - I think WeAreFairCop shared it. Manchester police didn't create it, but they shared it. Can't find it now, but it's definitely real as FairCop wouldn't make it up.

@Felix125 do you see the problem with suggesting that the police - an institutionally misogynistic organisation - are the right people to sort out misogyny (and worse) within the police?

If not, what do you think the answer is?

Or are you seriously suggesting misogyny is not a cultural problem within the police?

So, in this example, the others who in the group who don't get charged with a crime - should intelligence on them still remain and be used against them? After all these may fall into the category of a NCHI

It should absolutely be a part of their employment records and remain.

My issue with you @Felix125 is you are obviously extremely annoyed about the view taken of the Police but in my opinion you are directing your anger at the wrong target - the ones who hold that view and not the ones responsible for causing that view to be held. In your shoes I would be incandescent with those police officers and forces that have behaved in ways that have resulted in this view being held. I know @stillvicarinatutu has spoken out and challenged within the force she works for the issues raised on the various threads on here, what have you done?

Surely all those good police officers, as you count yourself to be, should stand up and make your voices heard as to the current state of the public perception of the police - why it is happening? Whether that be recruitment processes, disciplinary processes, an inbuilt culture - whatever, you are all being tainted.

Just seen an article that two children aged one year old were investigated by police last year.

But it does happen Felix
As you should rightly know.

Standards of behaviour are rightly expected to be higher and I would expect an investigation into WhatsApp messages where there was any evidence of misogyny and sexism by professional standards .

NCHI would not be created for this so am not sure where you are going with it.

@AlisonDonut twitter.com/womanchestermmn/status/1557389943076491264?s=46&t=-uT2-71dt8uytvkl0UTlvQ

Hope this reassures somewhat
There are dialogues ongoing at present

When was this posted @Charley50 ? Just had a quick look and can't see it on there

Utterly appalled at this

Am also baffled at your stance @Felix125 as that's the whole point of intelligence??
NCHI have been used inappropriately for years and the fact that sexism and misogyny doesn't count as hate crimes is beyond a joke

I think they need to be challenged, yes. But suggesting that you are the right people to deal with this, given you share the misogynistic attitudes of Couzens and his mates (as a group; I don't know your own views, though I have suspicions) is, as I say, crass.

thedancingbear
You're implying that I am crass for suggesting that we give the police greater powers to get rid of Couzens and his supporters due to their behaviour on social media (Wharsapp etc)

You appear do disagree with this.

So I am asking do these groups go unchecked then?

VestofAbsurdity
That's why i said might not have been breaking any law

And if they have broken a law, then they have been rightly charged and convicted. I don't have an issue with this and any future convictions.

So, in this example, the others who in the group who don't get charged with a crime - should intelligence on them still remain and be used against them? After all these may fall into the category of a NCHI

I think it should be used against them. And i think it should be the same in other professions too. So, if a similar group existed in the teaching profession for example.

Where did I say that?

For example Couzens cronies who had a misogynistic Whatsapp group - might not have been breaking any law, but the intelligence of what they are posting in the group should render their position in the police as null and void. Simplified example i know, but its just to get a point across

Some of Couzen's cronies in that group were charged with a crime, appeared in Court and were convicted so that blows your argument here out of the water. There was no requirement for an NCHI because they had actually committed a crime.

There are others in that group who may yet be charged with a crime, and there are certainly some who will and should be disciplined and dismissed for gross misconduct.

Yes, the bar for police officers should be set far higher than that for the general public and it's obvious as to why that should be.

AlisonDonut
I have said its wrong and it shouldn't be posted: (see above)

I agree - shouldn't be posting this like this, we should be neutral
But I have said this earlier on with things like supporting charities, wearing poppies, rainbow cars etc.
Our force doesn't - so we must be doing something right where we are.

Yes we are going over the same thing because you keep saying 'it won't happen' and we have evidence that it indeed, does happen.

So what NCHI was she arrested for?

She was arrested for mal comms which is a recorded crime - not a NCHI

And then read the post above to SnapeAlways for further comments on it

thedancingbear
So we just let these Whatsapp groups go unchecked then?

Were going over and over the same thing and you're not listening or understanding

Yes we are going over the same thing because you keep saying 'it won't happen' and we have evidence that it indeed, does happen.

I do wonder what the police would do if a woman stood in front of them and said 'I'm a TERF' - would they kill her, beat her up, arrest her, or basically put her in a van and drive her to the Dales and throw her into a peat bog. None of the above i would suggest

So what does 'No TERFs on our turf' mean then? You and your buddies are telling women they are not welcome in the public space so what are they going to do if one dares to walk around Manchester? It must mean something so what is it?

SnapeAlways
Mal comms is an either way offence, S2 harassment is summary only

Mal comms - Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive.
UK Public General Acts1988 c. 27 Section 1

This was my point in the earlier posts and its is subjective I agree with you - what is 'grossly offensive or indecent' to one person may not be to another.

If the reporting person says they believe it is - then you have the offence of mal comms made out in theory, based on the above definition.

So, from a police point of view, what does the call taker do - are they in a position to tell the reporting person that in the call taker's opinion, its not offensive and you should not be getting stressed over it - goodbye and end the call.

Or would they see it as an offence of mal comms is made out on the reporting call, so it will need investigating further?

Or do you have an interdependent person to judge what is grossly offensive or not? And if so, who would that be.

At present its the court which will ultimately decides (hence case law) - but this can only happen after the investigation has been completed and the case file is completed. And to complete this, you're going to need the IT equipment as its part of the evidence line. And to seize this, you can only use S32 or s18 of PACE following an arrest.

I'm not saying its right - but this is the law as it stands.

I'd just like to drop in to point out that @Felix125 using Couzens' and his supporters' behaviour to support the idea we should trust the police with greater powers is perhaps the single crassest thing I've read on this site.

Sorry, as you were.

I was arrested because of malicious communications - not harassment which is not an indictable offence.

The malicious communications involved other people’s posts on the KiwiFarms.

The ONLY reason I was arrested was to seize my IT.

Malicious Communications is in any event an highly subjective crime. I didn’t especially like the meme I was accused of making, it made me a bit uncomfortable, but other people have found it hilarious.

Should posting an allegedly offensive cartoon really pose a criminal offence necessitating arrest in front of one’s family?

AlisonDonut
Farrow was arrested for malicious communications & harassment.
Both of which are classified as crimes - so not a NCHI
Were going over and over the same thing and you're not listening or understanding.
Re-read the posts from earlier

I do wonder what the police would do if a woman stood in front of them and said 'I'm a TERF' - would they kill her, beat her up, arrest her, or basically put her in a van and drive her to the Dales and throw her into a peat bog.

None of the above i would suggest.

TastefulRainbowUnicorn
Is anyone else having deja vu?
Yes - me (see above and the previous pages)

ArabellaScott
I agree - shouldn't be posting this like this, we should be neutral
But I have said this earlier on with things like supporting charities, wearing poppies, rainbow cars etc.
Our force doesn't - so we must be doing something right where we are.

'intelligence' doesn't equal 'non-crimes' reported by anybody with no evidence required.
It has to be graded so that just one-word-gossip will not be as relevant as intelligence which is corroborated by something.
If you have a higher graded source or some sort of corroboration of that infomation, then I think it should be used.

Do we just use recorded criminal offences against someone for a prospective employer to use - or should we also use intelligence gathered on someone?

'intelligence' doesn't equal 'non-crimes' reported by anybody with no evidence required. That is more akin to 'gossip'.

That's interesting. So GMP are saying no feminists are allowed in Manchester? We don't see statements like that very often from the police. When do they state confidently that no Labour supporters, vegetarians, or Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed in a certain geographical area?