The police

It is often down the the individual cop as to how they deal with an incident.
From words of advice
Rj
Caution
Voluntary interview
Arrest

I'm not saying it's massively common , and discretion is needed if you've got a cop with some experience and common sense - but judging from some of the new recruits I see - they shouldn't be given discretion . I've seen some appalling decisions.

I've been reading and do you know what I think a big part of the problem is .....

Different police officers will deal with jobs in different ways - not always in my opinion- the right way .

I have actually intervened before now - I took a statement from an elderly lady that was being literally stalked by a gentleman companion who had got obsessed- but he was also vulnerable.

The cop who got the job decided to try and resolve it with restorative justice . It was clear this wasn't right .

I took it to the DA team Sgt who said no - can't do that .

Cop ignored her . Carried on . In the end the DA team took it and arrested suspect . He was a persistent sod and breached bail almost immediately.

There was no way RJ was right in that instance .

Today I was researching another case where the male suspect had committed GBH against his partner and got a caution!!!!!

This horrified me .

I think there is no uniformity in how jobs are dealt with - broadly there might be but some individual police officers dont seem to not grasp the gravity and are probably stressed , massive crime list , just want the job off their list etc and loose sight of the victim .

Unless there is a strong Sgt who says "no " then i think that's why there is such variation in how things are dealt with .

People (women ) need to kick up more fuss if something is minimised.

Its the 'cry wolf' scenario though

We have calls to police by the same people all the time - saying they are suicidal and they are going off with a rope to hang themselves. No mental health issues, just attention seeking and no prospect of them going onto any MH section.

Can we use the same principle here and just ignore them?

The one time when they actually carry through with threat and kill themselves - who's fault will this be?

AlisonDonut
Yes - i see it, horrible and if I had my way he would have been shot a long time ago. I have spent 25 years in the service putting creeps away like this.

See the example i gave on p2 or 3 with the guy sending his ex partner a greeting on social media. He would argue that I have gone over the top by arresting him for merely sending a greeting. But, it needed investigating impartially and resulted in him being convicted. If I didn't investigate impartially, it would have been NFA'd at court and he would have posted complaints about how bad the police are for arresting him for sending a greeting.

But - if the police are to adopt a new way of dealing with things like this. So say the public want a better way for the police to deal with a future Farrow type case - I am asking how we would do this?

Is there a cut off where we refuse to help a caller with a track record and assume that they are lying from the onset.

Would it be a certain number of convictions? A certain number of failed prosecutions? intelligence on them? What would it be - that's all I'm asking

Because it has to be the same for everyone - we can't just pick and chose who this is aimed at

A convicted sex offender harasses and abuses a woman for multiple years and you still cannot see that maybe you need to ever see it from the woman's point of view. It's literally what we expected you to say.

Or should we take each call on a case by case basis and make any call/enquiry impartial?

And is this adopted across the board for anyone calling:

If they have 10 or more convictions, they lose the right to any investigation?

Suits me - less work for us

How about if he was a convicted burglar or shop thief

So because he is a convicted sex offender - any future calls he males to police we should ignore?

Threats if golf clubs,and photos taken in her village. But let's completely ignore all that.

Years and years and years of harassment and abuse, year of pizzas being delivered to the house, years of abuse websites all documented and reported.

But it's a male so we have to take every word he says as the gospel.

He's a convicted sex offender who served in prison for having sex with a minor.

But no, let's completely forget that shall we…

So failed convictions at court count also

I mean you can even do a search on the courts system to find this out. It's not hard.

So is that the cut off 4 years?
1 year, 2 year - so many convictions?

What?

What is the cut off where the police refuse to take seriously a constant caller?

What is now, 30 failed attempts to take various people to court all paid for by the taxpayer? I'm happy to send you lot a fucking magnifying glass if it helps you out a bit.

How many years does a woman have to be harassed for to be believed? I think this one has been harassing her with menace for 4 now?
And all the others.

If I know the back story it doesn't take Sherlock fucking Holmes to do some of their own research does it?

Detectives my arse.

So I take it you can't answer them then. bye bye

Up for discussion says it all.

It's also a feminist forum. Not a man's forum. The fact that you think our experiences are u fo

AlisonDonut
Well discuss and answer the points above.

So when the reporting person phones up, you want the police to automatically assume "It's a meme. That's she didn't post" without any evidence, investigation - nothing.

It's a meme. That's she didn't post. For fucks sake pull your head out of your arse and do your fucking jobs.

AlisonDonut
Its a discussion forum..... to discuss things.

I'm not patrolling - I'm asking as part of the discussion - if you don't want to discuss it, then don't

And i'm not just talking to you, but as a group of posters in general

The Farrow case was mentioned a while back and it was eluded that the police should not have taken the reporting person seriously in this case and should not have even spoken to Farrow let alone arrest her.

So - if the police service is to improve on things like this - I am asking the question:

At what point do the police ignore the initial call?

At what point do we class the caller as a person who is just a serial complainer and is probably lying and can be ignored, in the Farrow case for example?

Is it the number of convictions/incidents against them of dishonesty offences?
Is the number of cases they have reported that have not resulted in a prosecution?

Do we not investigate the compliant at all?

Do we use this across the board with all people reporting stuff?

Alison 👍

Felix you patrol these threads demanding we show evidence and when we do you dismiss it.

Why can't you just let us talk unsupervised?

We don't owe you shit. Stop patrolling us. We all have our own eyes and can see what is going on here.