The police

Bearyhumcrack

I don't know if you are aware of the National Stalking Helpline, here's a link.

www.suzylamplugh.org/pages/category/national-stalking-helpline

Stalking is an awful crime and stalkers can be very dangerous indeed, take it seriously. As Brefugee said gather your own evidence by keeping records because the police sure as hell won't.

So again for Felix: it's not the actual report of hurty feelz that is the problem. Because the police should a) tell them to do one and b) they should be connecting the dots of this one person (or plenty of persons) reporting the same woman/women/people for the same thing over and over and over.

this is exactly the point I'm making that slides right past Felix' eyes/brain.

Have you reported the stalking, @Bearyhumcrack do it. Keep doing it. At some point something must happen. But. Gather your own evidence that she is outside your home (ring doorbell?) because they as sure as eggs are eggs won't.

I currently have a woman stalking and harassing me. It's phenomenal, life limiting. Amazingly. AMAZINGLY - the first thing she did when she decided to make my life hell, was report me to the police.

Even more amazingly, it's first come first served. So even though I've never met this woman and have no contact details for her, yet she knows where I live and work and regularly parks outside my parents house, the police aren't interested because according to them, she's a victim.

She's using them like wee little puppets and they are playing right into her trap.

In the meantime, my work have helped me develop an anti-stalking working pattern, I've changed my phone number and deleted all of my social media.

Thanks Felix. You're doing a cracking job.

Thelnebriati
Log it as yet another call from the same individual, and if he has no evidence its low priority. At what point do you investigate him for wasting police time? If you didn't log his calls how do you know he is persistent?

All calls are logged - and it was classed as low priority, that's why it would have dropped onto the non-emergency event queue to be dealt with as and when.

To investigate him for wasting police time, you have to have evidence that his call is malicious. What evidence do we have to say this - baring in mind we don't know what his actual report is?

But can we say that if he regularly reports things that do not end in a prosecution - we can class him as a malicious caller? If he makes regular complaints about his wife that do not end in a prosecution - we can class him as a malicious caller there? And would it change things if its his wife was making regular complaints about him that do not end in a prosecution - would she be a malicious caller?

ScreamingMeMe
And I am questioning why you treat all reports of crimes exactly the same, with the same 'rules' when some are clearly more serious than others.

I have answered this. All crimes that are reported are graded as to threat, harm & risk and prioritised accordingly. So a murder will always out trump a report of common assault for example.

But a victim of a common assault also deserves some kind of service and investigation. This has to be proportionate however, so we wouldn't look at sending items for forensic submissions for a common assault - but we can do things like obtaining statements, CCTV, interviewing the other party.

Ultimately its the court which decides guilt for any crime - so the evidence the police collect will be passed to the court via CPS for a trial, if it passes the threshold. However, the police can discontinue the case at any point if they believe there is insufficient evidence to prove the offence.

Justasmallgless
You need evidence to say he is wasting police time. So in this case what is the specific complaint he is making at KJK. And to show its not true, whats the evidence against it? The fact police were at the event doesn't add anything, as we don't know what the specific complaint is. We also don't know if KJK was under constant observations 100% of the time by a police officer.

Yes we can use ASBO's & CRASBOS - but you need evidence against him to get those.

We also can't just assume he has mental health issues in order to get a mental health assessment. There has to be a specific issue with him - is his current mental capacity making it impossible for him to cope with day to day life?

Brefugee
There not treat as crime of the century - they drop onto an event queue to be dealt with as and when. The cop will probably have about 15-20 of these event queue jobs on their own personal investigation queue which they have to try and deal with in among everything else coming in. These will be things that have no immediate threat, harm, risk - historic burglaries, commercial breaks, shop thefts, frauds, breach of orders etc etc

SnapeAlways
How do we get a situation where a man makes a complaint to the police that a woman has posted memes on the internet, and they take his word for it,

A reporting person can report any offence. if they have supporting evidence (an injury for example or a missing car) then this will support their report.

The problem occurs when its just their word. Most crimes are like this. If its just one persons word however, we can just ignore it - it needs to be investigated.

In this case the meme was swastika wasn't it?

So is this grossly offensive?

Might not be to you or me - but might be to someone else. And who judges whether a swastika is going to be offensive to someone? If it is offensive, then an offence of malicious communications is made out.

The arrest has to have a necessity to it - but I can't judge what that is as I don't have the circumstances that the OIC had. For me, I would look to vol interview which would be a lot quicker.

The merits of vol interviews were discussed at length earlier.

It's almost like there are different sets of rules for different kinds of people.

How do we get a situation where a man makes a complaint to the police that a woman has posted memes on the internet, and they take his word for it, arrest her and seize her devices to ascertain whether or not this is the case.

Its staggering that this can happen. That someone can make a malicious accusation based on a feeling in their water and accuse a person of being x poster on the internet (an accusation they know not to be true and have accused a number of other people) and police decide to arrest the suspect in front of their kids and check their socks for drugs before banging them in a cell?

How can this be proportionate or reasonable?

well obviously they can keep track of "malicious calls" because they managed to fine a woman legitimately reporting her stalker and fined her for making malicious calls and then her stalker killed her.

But serial reporters of women causing them hurty feelz is way too much for plod to cope with so they treat each new one as a separate crime of the century.

Surely there is a trigger plan for him, he can be investigated for a wasting police time,
Call a professionals meeting if he has MH issues

If all else fails get a criminal behaviour order to divert him from calling the police unless a real emergency

It's been done before

And I am questioning why you treat all reports of crimes exactly the same, with the same 'rules' when some are clearly more serious than others.

<screams into a bucket>

Keep going Felix you're doing a grand job.

Log it as yet another call from the same individual, and if he has no evidence its low priority. At what point do you investigate him for wasting police time? If you didn't log his calls how do you know he is persistent?

Go back to the last page where I described how jobs coming in are prioritised.

calls to DV incidents will always out trump one of 'hurty words'. That's why the 'hurty words' one will drop onto the event queue - not the priority queue. But it appears that it has been classed as a public order offence as opposed to just 'hurty words'. Why is that? What is the actual report here by the reporting person?

My point is one concerning persistent callers to the police. This guy who has made the allegation against KJK appears to be a constant caller. So I am asking at what point do we ignore him and what are the reasons given to ignore him. Because if we set a president, we will have to do it to other constant callers.

ScreamingMeMe
The reply was to the post of "....Investigating women for hurty words when it's men who are much more likely to commit acts of actual violence..."
Seems to imply that the police should be focusing more on men as the perpetrator in each case

No! It's about where your focus and priorities lie.

Oh gosh I wonder if it would be possible to distinguish between calls regarding domestic violence and calls relating to speech and treat one with more seriousness? It seems not, in Felix's world.

FOJN
We do - starts with the call takers, moves onto the Force Incident Management, moves onto the, crime management unit, dispatchers, then onto the discretion of the cop sent. Everything triaged.

And i have never said that violent acts are only ever perpetrated by an offender of the opposite sex to the victim - where have I said that?

And the offence is not hurty words. Its an offence under the public order act - a specific offence in law. We don't know what the reporting person has alleged against KJK, so we can not judge. But it has passed all the above triage stages. Even the cop who was sent can't get rid of it at source (which would be in her own interests) and needed to investigate further. Why would the cop be doing this rather than get rid of it and crack on with the rest of her crime queue?

AlisonDonut
police would be better off focusing on violent men, rather than women who speak words in public
We can't just pick on one group over another. It doesn't matter what the sex, ethnicity, religious background of a reporting person is -their report is taken on its merits.

As you have also agreed to - in the KJK case, we don't know what the actual reporting person has said in their report/statement - so we can not judge what the complaint is.

ScreamingMeMe
The reply was to the post of "....Investigating women for hurty words when it's men who are much more likely to commit acts of actual violence..."
Seems to imply that the police should be focusing more on men as the perpetrator in each case

HatThatWearsYou
I'm not copy and pasting from anything - all my own words. If you disagree with anything I have written, just ask.

lechiffre55
I think Felix is a great metaphor for what's happened the police in general.
They are meant to serve the public and keep us safe, we pay them to do this. Long ago they stopped listening to the public they are meant to protect, and now they don't give a flying fork about what we think. They are off doing their own thing and lost the public a long time ago. Nowhere has Felix listened or taken on board the concerns expressed here, he's only here to tell us why we are wrong.

Is the reporting person in the KJK case a member of the public?
Do we just ignore anything he says from now on?
Do we use this stance for other reported incidents from persistent callers?

And i am listening - you're just not listening to me and keep repeating incorrect things all the time:

If you have enough evidence you can arrest someone - not true
Vol interviews are never beneficial to the interviewee - not true
Police don't investigate defence alibis/statement - not true
No triage happens to reporting calls - not true
We should ignore persistent callers - we can't (cry wolf scenario)
KJK is being investigated for hurty words - not true, we don't know what report is
Police at the event had KJK under total observations - unknown

If people are posting things that are not true, I'm going to comment

Brefugee
Felix is just spewing bullshit.

So far on this thread I have said:

Police should be better vetted and continued to be vetted through their service. Anyone having committed an offence should be binned. Intelligence should be used in this vetting process, so any cop on a social media platform can be monitored and sacked if they are posting things that are misogynistic, racist etc etc

We should not have rainbow cars, rainbow lanyards, poppies, pin badges, Ukraine badges, charity ribbons, charity badges etc etc

Defence statements & alibis must be investigated by the police before going to court

R v Roberts has nothing to do with police interviews under caution

Choose to do a voluntary Interview and the case may be NFA'd without the need to go to court - so beneficial to the interviewee.

If there is no defence interview then he court will have only the reporting persons statement to go with - effectively one word against nothing if there is no supporting evidence.

Persistent callers to the police who have had a jail term for sex offences cannot simple be ignored. Each complaint must be taken on its merits and passed through the triage stages.

if we take a stance of ignoring persistent callers to police, then vulnerable victims will fall through the net, such as DV victims, suicidal people

So I take it you disagree with all of the above?

If you want a Yes/No answer, then don't ask open questions.
Whats the question you want a Yes/No answer to?

Felix is just spewing bullshit.
s/he has NOT answered questions.
I would like to see a simple yes/no to some of them.
But frankly? I just slide by their posts now

I know it wasn't felix who said this, but I also think the PCs who think "women think the police are out to get them (subtext: women are paranoid)" is a really unhelpful starting point.

It's already a block in the form of unconscious bias. Any woman with a reasonable complaint who goes to a police officer holding a view like that is going to be starting for a position of having to convince them that they are not being paranoid or ridiculous or whatever.

Felix also seems to thing that violent acts are only ever perpetrated by an offender of the opposite sex to the victim.

Is someone going to tell him that it's statistically more likely for a man to be a victim of violent crime but that it is still statistically more likely the offender will also be male? I'm sure there are plenty of men who would rather tax pounds were spent investigating real crimes.

The point is Felix regardless of the sex of the suspect or victim I don't think the police should be in investigating anyone because someone's feelings are hurt.

Please leave women alone and do some meaningful policing.

I think Felix is a great metaphor for what's happened the police in general.
They are meant to serve the public and keep us safe, we pay them to do this. Long ago they stopped listening to the public they are meant to protect, and now they don't give a flying fork about what we think. They are off doing their own thing and lost the public a long time ago. Nowhere has Felix listened or taken on board the concerns expressed here, he's only here to tell us why we are wrong.

Agree with Hat.

He isn't here to engage. He is here to police all police threads.

It does look like Felix just copies and pastes a lot of their responses from a pre-prepared diversion diagram. It's bad faith arguing.

Everyone has been very patient but he's never going to engage with the discussion in good faith.

How the hell did you get that from what FOJN posted?

80% of the prison population is male and the vast majority are for violent crimes.

We know this.

May we politely suggest that the police would be better off focusing on violent men, rather than women who speak words in public without chaperones. [Who also take body cam footage the whole day due to the violent males that come at them for speaking words in public].

And yes, get that into your triage system somehow! It would be a start.