The police

AlisonDonut
I do get it and answered it. But the word 'bisexual' is mentioned in the post, despite ResisterRex saying that they did not bring it up. I didn't bring it up - they brought it up.

So surly if its brought up it can be discussed?

ResisterRex
I have never been sent to search a female.

No - they can't demand, where i have said that. Their views are taken into consideration as to dictate who searches, they can't demand.

There may be no restrictions in PACE, but it doesn't mean to say its happening - unless you can show otherwise.

Of the police forces queried, none stated that it offered any restrictions on male officers who identify as transgender preventing them from conducting intimate searches on females - so if the detainee is a male who identifies as a female, can this be used to conduct a search here?

So effectively, you will have a biological male searching a biological male who identifies as a female. But your suggesting the force should have restrictions on them to prevent this from happening. So, the biological male detainee (who identifies as a female) should be only searched by a female officer...?

Even if you have a biological male officer who identifies as a female, the search parameters are taken into consideration by custody and the detainees views will be addressed.

Unless, you can quote otherwise, i don't think there has been an example of a male officer who identifies as a female conducting a strip search of a female detainee.

Yes I was accurately reflecting what was said in the video. My point is then about males searching females. Which you know but chose to misinterpret as though it's some gotcha. It isn't.

its the person being searched who dictates who does the searches

So males identifying as female can demand a female strip searches them then, and that poses no risk to female officers? The risk of self-ID goes both ways in custody, as your selective quoting of that report shows. The report also says:

Of the police forces queried, none stated that it offered any restrictions on male officers who identify as transgender preventing them from conducting intimate searches on females. One force answered that it recognised that an intimate search in custody “cannot be done by a person of the opposite sex” but did clarify if it understands what sex means or if “sex” is “gender” or “gender identity” as is common within many forces. The reasons for this seem to be contained within the conflicting police guidelines where the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) makes clear such searches must be made by an officer of the same sex, the annexes, however, this becomes entirely muddled where “gender” overrides “sex” or is often confused with “sex” as a category.

PACE is clear. The annexes and guidance are not.

The liberal position is “It’s awful that the police are institutionally racist and misogynist, but it’s great that they stand up for LGBTQ+ people!”

The police don’t stand up for LGBTQ+ people. Where are you getting that idea from? They’re also institutionally homophobic and transphobic.

It is the trans woman part of that sentence that is the issue.

Totally surprised to know you still don't get it.

ResisterRex
You did bring it up - your post:

ResisterRex · Yesterday 17:22
The response about poppies is such a reach. No comment on the "queer" police officers either. One of them in that video is a male who it would seem, works in custody (and identifies as a bisexual transwoman). Custody. Where females will be vulnerable and possibly strip searched.

So the report makes clear that under PACE provisions the person being searched:

"....the person should be asked what gender they consider themselves to be. If they express a preference to be dealt with as a particular gender, they should be asked to indicate and confirm their preference by signing the custody record or, if a custody record has not been opened, the search record or the officer’s notebook. If the person is unwilling to express a preference as in (i) above, efforts should be made 7 Report on NHS and Police Accommodation for the Provision of Female-Only Services to determine their predominant lifestyle and they should be treated as such. For example, if they appear to live predominantly as a woman, they should be treated as being female. if none of the above apply, the person should be dealt with according to what reasonably appears to have been their sex as registered at birth..."

So, its the person being searched who dictates who does the searches

And as a male officer - i will not be tasked by custody to conduct a strip search of a female.

No I did not. And this report says otherwise about searches:

https://www.standingforwomen.com/files/ugd/1b54b44_be4532b6a2dc419e90c090dbfc8f6868.pdf

You brought up the 'bisexual' point - did you not?

If you are a biological male, you will not be given the task to search a biological female. Custody will take this into consideration when searches are being done.

They will be plenty of staff in custody who will not be 'trans' to perform the searches.

You're dodging the issue. No one cares what someone's sexual orientation is. But females do care about being searched by males. It's against PACE, is it not?

ResisterRex
I didn't say that - and as a custody sergeant, they would nor be involved in the searches in any case

My question to you was - "So, are you are against some who is bi-sexual working in custody? What if they are gay, will they be OK to work in custody? What if the detainee is bi-sexual, who searches them then?"

Wow. A male identifying as a female working in custody isn't a problem?

ResisterRex
How do you mean - its such a reach?

So, are you are against some who is bi-sexual working in custody? What if they are gay, will they be OK to work in custody? What if the detainee is bi-sexual, who searches them then?

Brefugee
So, if its a wide open goal what do you suggest to close it. Do we use intelligence or not? Convictions - I agree with you. Any convictions against you should preclude you from joining. How can I justifiably police someone who is a thief if i have a conviction for a theft offence myself. Or how can I justifiably police someone for speeding if i have a speeding offence myself, regardless if its 35 in a 30.

You're not 'arrested for tweets'. The offence is harassment or mal comms. If they are convicted for any of these offences, then it will appear on a persons record. If they are not convicted, does this then become intelligence and if so, can the fact that they have been arrested & investigated be used against them when applying for the job?

If your suggesting that this is the case by commenting ".....Including, but not restricted to "yeah but if there's no conviction..." (from an organisation that has arrested people for tweets)..." Then it appears you are suggesting that intelligence can be used against them.

This then goes against what others stated in the previous thread (Are the police too woke) - where we shouldn't record intelligence on people that are not convictions and use them to preclude them from jobs - you can't have it both ways

will that stop people slipping through the net? Can a person keep below the radar in order to pursue what ever criminal thing they want to do whilst in the police?

it is not so much a net as a wide open gaping goal. And i am not seeing any evidence that anyone involved in the police is that invested in closing them. Including, but not restricted to "yeah but if there's no conviction..." (from an organisation that has arrested people for tweets)

The response about poppies is such a reach. No comment on the "queer" police officers either. One of them in that video is a male who it would seem, works in custody (and identifies as a bisexual transwoman). Custody. Where females will be vulnerable and possibly strip searched.

I'm not disagreeing with you am I?

And it will be the same in a number of organisations for all people working in it

Felix125
I really do think you ought to remove your rose coloured spectacles. Willfull blindness is pretty common in all organisations, there is a huge difference in what people say and what they do.

From the report:
Challenging and reporting prejudicial and improper behaviour

Most police officers and staff told us they would recognise prejudicial and improper behaviour and knew how to report it. Conversely, some officers and staff who had personally experienced such behaviour told us it was often witnessed by colleagues, including supervisors. But they said that these colleagues rarely challenged it.

Many women told us they were used to tolerating a degree of such behaviour before reporting it. And many told us they were worried about the repercussions if they did make a report. They were concerned that they would be viewed as a troublemaker or be ostracised.

When (usually female) police officers and staff did report this behaviour, in most cases they were dissatisfied with the outcome.

Brefugee
I'm not being disingenuous - I am agreeing with you, that currently the vetting process is failing if it is allowing people to join the force with convictions or proven offences. They should not be allowed in the force - end of.

The case studies which were mentioned on page 2, detail incidents that the candidates were involved in that did not result in a prosecution; so they were not convicted. All i was asking is - do we use intelligence gathered on people to vet them? Its just in a previous thread, there was a clear tone that they should not be used and the police should not use such intelligence on people on deciding their employment.

Yes we do have yearly appraisals and the the recruits are heavily monitored during their training and for their subsequent 2 years probation - but will that stop people slipping through the net? Can a person keep below the radar in order to pursue what ever criminal thing they want to do whilst in the police?

Shelefttheweb
I know who sells the poppies and why - and outside of work i am happy to wear one and often put money into what ever collection is in front of me.

And yes, it seems perfectly reasonable for members of the armed forces to support them.

But our force doesn't due to various issues. For example, hardly any war memorial makes any reference to women who lost their lives in active service etc etc. So which poppy do we wear, the red one, the pink one, the white one...?

Shelefttheweb
That's up to that organisation - but we can't because of the 'issues' that it brings

That is a rather flippant reply to asking about poppies and the armed forces. Almost like you have no idea who sells the poppies or why. Just as a reminder they are sold by the Royal British Legion who provide support for members of the British armed forces, veterans and their families. Does that not seem something that it would be both reasonable and non-political for members of those self same armed forces to support?

Convictions, i agree with you as they are recorded as such. So 35 in a 30 would come up as such and should be used to dismiss. Its an offence.
But what if its just intelligence and no convictions has come from it - do we use it against the applicant?

again disingenuous. The reports say that people with convictions for violence (for eg) are in the force because the force (as a whole) doesn't vet properly. I don't know how my comment wasn't clear but here we go:

if they are flagged up for having a conviction (spent or otherwise) the vetting officer needs to look what it was. 20 years ago 35 in a 30 zone, nothing since? fine, let them in, let them know you know about it and maybe discuss before they are finally recruited.

5 convictions, some within the last 5 years for "boy racer" types of things? theft? violence (especially against minorities)? Again you can look to see if there are mitigating circs, but that should be an automatic no.

Intelligence? Is it robust? I would normally say: no conviction no issue. But we all know that there are people who slip through the net. Don't you do f2f interviews? during the basic training aren't the recruiters paying attention? Yearly appraisals? there is scope to eject these too

I used to vet people in the military. To an excruciatingly high level on occasion. Have been deeply vetted myself. Those two examples above should be the absolute basics.

and it should be constant. I am assuming the police have yearly appraisal? if it comes up one year that there have been complaints of sexist comments or inappropriate behaviour? talk about it, it goes on record. The threshhold should be low for this. If it is something that would be actionable under regs or law: disiplinary process and possibly out of the force. There should be zero tolerance for it, and again police officers must and should be held to higher standards than joe public.

AlisonDonut
I did say that our force doesn't do it - the Met might, but we do not.

Shelefttheweb
That's up to that organisation - but we can't because of the 'issues' that it brings

Brefugee
Convictions, i agree with you as they are recorded as such. So 35 in a 30 would come up as such and should be used to dismiss. Its an offence.
But what if its just intelligence and no convictions has come from it - do we use it against the applicant?

ResisterRex
And what if people are against us wearing a poppy?
And which poppy do we wear - the red one, the white one, the black one, the purple one, the pink one?

Looks like we are wearing rainbow colours again - which is what your are against isn't it?

A cursory glance through police-related Twitter today:

twitter.com/attitudemag/status/1590037741751803904?s=46&t=F12ECblopxG9yE8kNtt1ng

"Queer" police officers announcing pronouns (no, "queer" is not in the Equality Act and yes, you'd think those engaged in social justice at work would trouble themselves with knowledge of the law). This has no place in policing and is in no way comparable to wearing a poppy, and never will be.

And the federation want to be asked questions:

twitter.com/pfew_hq/status/1590388754912489472?s=46&t=F12ECblopxG9yE8kNtt1ng

Mind you - on the other debate we had about Woke issues & the police - most people agreed that we shouldn't use intelligence against people when going for jobs, only actual convictions. So would the same argument be true here? People were saying that we shouldn't be going down the 'Stazi' line
Also, speeding is speeding - its still an offence.
So if you were doing say 35 in a 30, it should be a dismissal, shouldn't it?

You're being disingenuous here. The fact is that you have abandoned necessary checks on new police officers and as a result, an already institutionally racist and misogynistic organisation has even more people who we need to be concerned about among their ranks.

At the very least if someone applied to the police, had a conviction (would they?) for doing 35 in a 30 zone 5 years ago - i would expect the vetting process to uncover that and a case-by-case decision made.

If it was 90 in a 30 zone, there were drugs related convictions, theft related convictions etc (as pp outlined above) i would expect them to be rejected out of hand.

You're in the force, you must know that it attracts an above average number of people on power trips. Your vetting process must be thorough and err on the side of caution. And seen to be doing that. And no wishy-washy excuses about one bad apple. It is dozens and dozens of them. And then all the others who stand by while it goes on.

You should be held to higher standards than others, for sure.

Its the same with wearing poppies or wearing pink or blue ribbons for cancer charities, or publicly raising money for them - it shouldn't be being done under the umbrella of the job

How do you feel about members of the armed forces wearing poppies?

Just got this from the Metropolitan Police Twitter account.

No doubt you will tell us it doesn't happen, hasn't happened or shouldn't happen. And yet our eyes see it happening.

FernlovingNodosaur
I agree - he and the others should have been kicked out a long time ago.
That's why i personally say that anyone with any kind of offence - from assault to a minor speeding ticket - should be gone.

I agree - but not every police officer is a member of that group. In fact, its only a very small percentage - but i agree, we shouldn't be aligning to any organisation or charity

Its the same with wearing poppies or wearing pink or blue ribbons for cancer charities, or publicly raising money for them - it shouldn't be being done under the umbrella of the job

If they want to support a charity or raise money for it on your days off - then that's a different issue - but not at work