The police

Felix This is the last time I will respond to you.

If the police do not have some sort of triage system for prioritising cases they need to develop one. HTH

Another day, another post with a dodgy line of reasoning.

FOJN
Ah right, so from now on because men are much more likely to use violence - always assume that its the man who is the violent one or the one at fault.

So if a man reports an offence being committed on him by a women - we ignore it, because the chances are it won't have happened and chances are its the man at fault.

So in a DV relationship, the man reports an offence by his female partner - its probably not happened and we just ignore him.

Or if its not a violent offence, we ignore it - as there will be other violent offences we need to deal with instead - so ignore mal comms, harassment, breach of non mol orders, thefts of phones, frauds etc etc

Can't see this causing any issues for public confidence?

How do you want the OIC to jostle the jobs on her own queue, the jobs on the event queue, the emergency jobs coming in and all the safeguarding concerns (suicidal people, missing from homes etc)

Felix

I can't be arsed to respond to the rest of what you have written but I do want to respond to this:

OK - which incidents do we ignore then to increases public confidence?
And who judges which ones do we ignore?

I'd hate to tell you how to do your job but I'd start with the reports where there has been direct death threats and a history of actual violence. You know, the cases where women often end up dead because the police do fuck all to help. Investigating women for hurty words when it's men who are much more likely to commit acts of actual violence seems like a perverse set of priorities.

Tallisker
So what questions am I not answering?

if you don't want to read then that's fine - but don't complain about the police not doing things properly and ask questions as to why police do things in a certain way?

And if posters raise things which I think are not correct - i am going to respond to it - why shouldn't I. Its a discussion forum after all - unless you just want me to reply "Oh yes its all terrible isn't it" all the time.

But then i would be accused of not taking the issue seriously.

I'd LOVE an Ignore function on MN for all the wall of text wafflers and the rude, nasty wallopers.

You do know that nobody is reading your walls of text, don't you, Felix? We're all just scrolling on by once we've realised it's more of the same shit.

And you keep saying you've answered things but all I see is questions. Should the police do this, should the police do that.

Give it up, there's a love. Your making an utter fool of yourself and still not listening to a thing women are saying. You are single handedly confirming women's fears about the police. You show us with every arrogant utterance that we are right to be concerned.

Charley50
We've been through all of this - if you can't be arsed to read then you wont find out.

But to summarise - All jobs are graded on threat, harm, risk, seriousness and dealt with in order. Any less important/serious jobs drop onto an event queue to dealt with as and when. If a job on the event queue is investigated, there may be a necessity to arrest that person like in all offences.

Yes there will be more & more incoming important jobs for officers to deal with - that's why individual officers often carry a case load of about 20 ongoing jobs that they deal with as & when that often take months to sort as they have no specific time to dedicate to them. I've got about 15 jobs on my queue that I do every now and then when i get chance to do them between emergencies & safeguarding issues.

You're not arrested for 'stickers' as there is no offence - the offence will be one of harassment or similar. So an offence is made out which needs investigating.

As AlisonDonut has pointed out - we have no idea of what the original complaint is - we also don't know if officers at the event had KJK under constant observations 100% of the time.

Prolific vexatious complainers - how do we judge these? Always ignore them after so many calls to police?

FOJN
If the police have tons of evidence you committed a crime and you have declined their kind invitation to a voluntary interview then they have necessity to arrest. They would look pretty stupid bringing charges against someone without exercising those powers.
No they don't - if its a historic crime - how is prompt & effective?
Whats is the effective necessity required to arrest?
If KJK wants to decline her opportunity to be interviewed (or indeed go 'no reply') then that's fine. The case will proceed with the only evidence there is - that from the reporting person. Their witness statement will be evidence in chief with nothing to stand against it.

If KJK simply doesn't turn up for the arranged interview, they may look at evading justice & flight risk as a necessity to arrest, but at the moment its a voluntary interview - the clue is in the title 'voluntary'

And yet the police seem to have found the time to arrest a surprising number of women for the crime of having an opinion.
No, you need to have an offence (harassment, mal comms ect) - as I say most of these jobs will be written of at the call taker stage. The ones that filter through can be written off by the OIC as they can exercise proportionality & discretion. But you will always have some that merit an investigation. We don't know what the reporting person has said here - so we can not judge. This will then just be added to the ongoing 20 jobs that the OIC carries.

In essence, it will be I the OIC's interests to write it off at source if she can - but in this case she was unable to - Why?

I never said that in this case that the KJK was a threat to the reporting person's safety. We don't know what the reporting person has said.

Defending this kind of behaviour from the police does absolutely nothing to improve public confidence in them.
OK - which incidents do we ignore then to increases public confidence?
And who judges which ones do we ignore?
Do we decide to ignore anyone who has made a number of complaints that have not resulted in a prosecution?
Do we decide to ignore anyone who has made a series of complaints about the same individual?
Do we have a cut off for incidents which we deal with - so public order incidents, harassment, mal comms - should always be ignored so we can deal with more serious crimes?
Who decides which ones we do or don't investigate?

AlisonDonut
Because women getting out of line is much more important than addressing male violence.
80% of the prison population is male and the vast majority are for violent crimes.
And see above about how incidents are graded and dealt with as to priority of incidents.

Brefugee
I have answered you several times - you can have all the joined up thinking you want about the same person making the same compliant about the same person. But you can't just ignore the next complaint coming in from them. You can take their past complaints into consideration - but what if this next complaint is genuine? How many suicidal people do we get who say the same reports to police day in day out - do we ignore the next call? DV victims that often decline to prosecute for various reasons - do we ignore their next call?

Its the 'cry wolf scenario' - and who carries the can when it goes wrong?

If you want to prosecute someone for malicious complaints, wasting police time - then you need evidence to support this. if it was proved at court, then it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

One word against another will not be enough at court - so the malicious complainer suspect has given an account in interview that can be corroborated for example.

For me his absolute refusal to engage the basic premise of the question: how come women get arrested (or spoken to) for stickering when real stalkers are free to kill their victims (when there is a known actual threat)
You're not arrested for 'stickers' as there is no offence - the offence will be one of harassment or similar.

So an offence is made out which needs investigating.

All jobs are graded on threat, harm, risk, seriousness and dealt with in order.
Any less important/serious jobs drop onto an event queue to dealt with as and when.
If a job on the event queue is investigated, there may be a necessity to arrest that person.

Yes there will be more & more incoming important jobs for officers to deal with - that's why individual officers often carry a case load of about 20 ongoing jobs that they deal with as & when, that often take months to sort as they have no time to dedicate to them.

The ones that filter through can be written off by the OIC as they can exercise proportionality & discretion.
But you will always have some that merit an investigation.
We don't know what the reporting person has said here - so we can not judge.
This will then just be added to the ongoing 20 jobs that the OIC carries.

In essence, it will be I the OIC's interests to write it off at source if she can - but in this case she was unable to - Why?
I never said that in this case that the KJK was a threat to the reporting person's safety.
We don't know what the reporting person has said.

I'm answering your points - if you don't want to read - its up to you
If you have any questions, then be specific on what you are asking and why the answers given don't answer the questions previously made.

AlisonDonut
If the woman said 'a man is stalking me and threatening to kill me' multiple times, but a man says 'she called me a man', which is more important? More pressing?

So the OIC who made the phone call to KJK - are you saying that they ignored an emergency call to make that phone call instead?

Were there any ongoing emergencies in at that time?

Has the OIC used a 'lul' in incoming emergency calls to make that phone call to progress an enquiry which is on her job queue? Used her time at the end of the shift to make the call?

How do you think individual officers deal with jobs that they have on a day to day basis? How do you think they go about being able to investigate the jobs on their queue?

lechiffre55
DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter - quoted R v Roberts which has nothing to do with police interviews under caution. So its irrelevant here. Unless you can quote the section in R v Robers that covers defence statements given under caution?

ScreamingMeMe
Great, that's fine. But she will possibly be summonsed to court if the reporting person wants to pursue it that far. As we have one word against nothing. Reporting person's statement will be given as chief evidence and nothing to appose it.

She may be able to raise a defence at court - but if she raised it in the vol interview it may have negated a court hearing in the first place. In essence, its just her time she is wasting.

Well, this is a evry revealing thread. Possibly worthy of a thread of its own?

"The UK police have recruited several men who 'identify' as women to work as officers or advisers in the last three or four years. Here's a thread on how that's working out so far"

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1597141601180356609?t=TmrKCoG4JDec12SyegRztw&s=19

KJK says in this video that she is not going to attend the 'voluntary' interview. No doubt she will have spoken to a solicitor.

twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1596975653034766336?t=SGOKPbKP-C6OyH2YaV5_Dw&s=19

I can't read them, it's not that I don't want to. I just mentally can't. My brain (such as it is) slides right off them. I'm sorry, they obviously, from the walls of text, take care to post. Hopefully, he's got a database of responses now and just slots in whatever seems appropriate. Should speed the whole process up.

@Felix125's posts on this thread have been hugely instructive and revealing, though not in the way I think he intends.

@Felix125

I think that places me in a stronger position in court than in an interview room.
You're not really any better off - its just you're having to answer to the evidence at court. Raise a defence there (I was at work) and the court case will have to be adjourned for them to check it out. You're effectively wasting your own time if this defence could have been raised earlier and checked out during the police investigation stage. But if you have refused to be interviewed by the police then the defence could not be checked before the trial.

Strange that. "You're not really any better off" professional legal advice strongly disagrees with you on this front. There's been some in this very thread from @DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter I know who I believe on this, and it's not a close one at all.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Well it all depends on what the person who reposted it said.

If the woman said 'a man is stalking me and threatening to kill me' multiple times, but a man says 'she called me a man', which is more important? More pressing?

The fact that they fined the woman who ended up, indeed, dead - says it all really doesn't it? And yet an actual criminal who was in jail for sex offences against minors - who keeps doing it, and they all jump.

For me his absolute refusal to engage the basic premise of the question: how come women get arrested (or spoken to) for stickering when real stalkers are free to kill their victims (when there is a known actual threat)

Yeah I'm not going to read any more of Felix's posts. It's frankly fucking insulting to read his constant justifications, when even the actual police as an institution admit they have a problem with misogyny, and women's livelihoods and lives have been threatened and taken because of it. I guess things are all good in Ballamory.

I've decided to jump over Felix' "answers" because they don't.

The motivation of the complainant would only be relevant as mitigation if the police decided to take action for wasting their time.

The entirety of my questioning recently has concerned malicious complaints. And how they are checked, we know that there are people who are serial malicious complainers - i want to know if there is joined up thinking or if they make a complaint, then reset so they make another which is in no way connected (by the police) to their previous complaint. Ad infinitum. so the woman are constantly being approached by the police while the complainant just keeps going.

Until it was a woman reporting her ex for ACTUALLY stalking her (there are now laws) and she was fined as a malicious serial complainer, and nothing done so she was murdered. So in that case the police could, apparently, keep a record (without checking details, natch) and fined her for speaking the truth and ignored her until she was dead.

How can you reconcile the two things? Unless you, as an organisation, DGAF about women.

Because women getting out of line is much more important than addressing male violence.

Clearly!

You don't need sufficient evidence to arrest someone. An arrest can only be done if you have the necessity to do so. You can have tons of evidence - but if the necessity is not there, you can't arrest.

The police can arrest to allow the prompt and effective investigation of an alleged offence. If the police have tons of evidence you committed a crime and you have declined their kind invitation to a voluntary interview then they have necessity to arrest. They would look pretty stupid bringing charges against someone without exercising those powers.

In this case they want to investigate the complaint made against KJK and she is refusing to attend a voluntary interview so the police will have to arrest her. The optics on this are so bad that I imagine there is someone somewhere trying to find a way to make it go away.

As above - we do already and write loads of jobs off at the call taker stage. But who decides which to write of or not? And would a victim have the right to complain that their report is not being taken seriously? If someone waved their fist at you and you felt threatened for your safety - how would you feel that an offence has happened against you (common assault) but the police tell you its not serious and stop wasting our time?

And yet the police seem to have found the time to arrest a surprising number of women for the crime of having an opinion. It's curious how it's turned out that way. If everyone reported every incident of another person saying something mean to them the police wouldn't have the time to answer the phones nevermind investigate. Perhaps women are more casual about being on the receiving end of verbal abuse because we're so use to it. The idea that the complainant in this case thinks KJK is a threat to their safety is laughable and you know it. It's obvious to everyone it's vexatious.

I'm sure there are many women who would have liked the police to take concerns about their safety seriously when they complained about a pattern of escalating harassing and stalking behaviour against them, fortunately for the police dead women can't make complaints.

Defending this kind of behaviour from the police does absolutely nothing to improve public confidence in them.

Admittedly I can't be arsed to fully read this thread anymore, but Felix how can you say that crimes are investigated in order in terms of their seriousness? That is evidently not true when women are being arrested for putting stickers on lampposts, for maybe or maybe not tweeting something that might be slightly offensive (with the complainant clearly being a prolific vexatious one), or for hosting a free speech event with police standing next to her who saw no problem at the time. Are you implying there are no less important 'crimes' to occupy our decimated and under-funded police forces?

You're always going to have proportionality and discretion in any investigation - so its not a case that every infringement of a law or reported offence will be investigated.

But - if you're allowing proportionality and discretion to play a part and allowing a police officer to decide the proportionality and discretion for each case - then you will always have incidents that are being pursued that some might say shouldn't have been and vice-versa.

So you will have cases like KJK - some people will say it should be investigated, others say it shouldn't - who's right? And who should decide if it should be investigated?

FOJN
You don't need sufficient evidence to arrest someone. An arrest can only be done if you have the necessity to do so. You can have tons of evidence - but if the necessity is not there, you can't arrest.

You have stated that cases where there was insufficient grounds to arrest have gone to court after a voluntary interview and how the police proceed will sometimes depend on what is said in that interview. Why would I help the police if it harms me in a situation where I am not legally compelled to?
Because you could be interviewed, state your side of the story which can be easily corroborated (I was at work at the time) and the case will be dropped there and then. Or you could bring up a view of self defence, or a reasonable reason why your fingerprints are found at a crime scene (I'm a window cleaner) - and the case can be dropped. Its not about helping the police, its about helping yourself. If you don't want to be interviewed or go 'no reply' then there is nothing to stand against what ever evidence there is - which could just be the statement of the reporting person.

I can be inconvenienced by a voluntary interview or a court summons.
Yes - fine. But the case may be discontinued after the police interview without it going to court. And your defence solicitors can be given disclosure before the court date, of course, but if you gave your account in the police interview, you might not need to go to court at all. Of course if your account (or no reply account), together with whatever evidence there is, is sufficient to make a case to answer to - it will go to court. The court is the place which decides guilt based on all the evidence. But it might not need to go that far if your account in police interview negates the reporting person's line of evidence.

I think that places me in a stronger position in court than in an interview room.
You're not really any better off - its just you're having to answer to the evidence at court. Raise a defence there (I was at work) and the court case will have to be adjourned for them to check it out. You're effectively wasting your own time if this defence could have been raised earlier and checked out during the police investigation stage. But if you have refused to be interviewed by the police then the defence could not be checked before the trial.

lechiffre55
Dealing with the most serious first and working your way down to the least serious.
We do. All jobs are graded on the most serious with regards to threat, harm or risk to the least. But bare in mind more & more jobs keep coming in.

So waving your fist at some one & putting them in fear of violence should be ignored? - is this the same if its in a DV relationship? Should a person be able to walk down the street without being placed in fear?

Of course rapes & murders are taken more seriously - but at what point is it acceptable to start ignoring jobs which are classed as crimes? Harassment & stalking - which point do we say to the reporting person to grow up and don't take things too much to heart? Don't take it seriously when someone is threatening or harassing them?

Do we take it seriously if it is part of a domestic relationship? But how would a person feel if the police write the same harassment job off because they are not in a relationship and its just neighbours? Partners get prosecuted if they threaten violence to each other, but random people in the street can get away with it - same crime, same evidence, but different outcomes. Is that the law being applied impartially?

We do write loads of jobs off at the call taker stage, but it will depend on what is being reported as to what filters through to be investigated. As AlisonDonut has already stated - we don't know what the reporting person has said in this KJK case - so we can't judge as to what the allegations is here - and hence can not judge the evidence against KJK. We don't know what the statement says from the reporting person.

I'd think far more of you if only you "would you be happy for the police to just class that as trivial and tell you to stop wasting our time on such things" when people are just slinging verbal poop at each other. Yes, I would be much happier. How can you be so out of touch???
As above - we do already and write loads of jobs off at the call taker stage. But who decides which to write of or not? And would a victim have the right to complain that their report is not being taken seriously? If someone waved their fist at you and you felt threatened for your safety - how would you feel that an offence has happened against you (common assault) but the police tell you its not serious and stop wasting our time?

@Felix125
With something so trivial and infantile as a meanwords crime, what I really want the police to do in a situation like this is stop being political activists and go back to doing real police work. The fact there is no other supporting evidence says to me stop wasting taxpayers' money on this inane crap.
A crime of public order has been reported though - do we just ignore this as you don't like the group its associated with? And how would the reporting person feel if no action is taken even though in law a crime has been reported?
Go back to the person waving his fist at you - would you be happy for the police to just class that as trivial and tell you to stop wasting our time on such things?

Yes. Absolutely yes, and you really don't seem to understand why. Because they shook their fist at me. If they punched me I might have a cut and they might have a bruised fist with blood on it. That's a ton of evidence for the police. If someone shouts some stupid crap at me I literally don't want the police wasting my money on it.
You seem to religiously avoid the concept of priority. How serious is a reported offense? Prioritising those offenses into order of effect. Dealing with the most serious first and working your way down to the least serious. Every time I use the phrase meanwords crime or meanspeak crime you completely ignore that I and many others feel very strongly that the police are focusing on the least important and facile crimes that should be at the bottom of the heap. Its a crime so it should be treated like any other crime you seem to say, like all crimes are equal. To me all crimes are not equal, rape, murder, torture, are very serious but it seems very much like I'm talking to some stiff shirted jobsworth who is determined that if someone said something vaguely insulting to another person that it should be given equal priority if not higher priority to rape and murder. Do you not see how that damages the repuation of the police in the eyes of the public? I find it quite frankly very offensive and very damaging to the reputation of the police in my opinion that it seems some officers cannot see past their own noses and common sense died long ago in some cut off and dislocated areas of the police.
I'd think far more of you if only you "would you be happy for the police to just class that as trivial and tell you to stop wasting our time on such things" when people are just slinging verbal poop at each other. Yes, I would be much happier. How can you be so out of touch???

And just because you are going to be vol interviewed, it doesn't mean to say it will always be NFA'd. Its going to depend what you say in the interview and the other evidence in the case file.

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point and continue to characterise a voluntary interview as an opportunity for a suspect to give their side of the story.

In order to summon someone to court without an arrest or interview you need sufficient evidence to justify the charges. This may be a relatively easy for some offences such as drink driving where objective evidence exists but for an offence like this where there are two sides to the story I think it's unlikely the CPS would bring charges without an interview.

If you don't have sufficient evidence to arrest someone and bring them in for a formal interview then why would they attend for a voluntary interview which can only harm their case?

You have stated that cases where there was insufficient grounds to arrest have gone to court after a voluntary interview and how the police proceed will sometimes depend on what is said in that interview. Why would I help the police if it harms me in a situation where I am not legally compelled to?

I can be inconvenienced by a voluntary interview or a court summons. I think I'm correct in saying that the CPS has to disclose all it's evidence to the defence (? discovery) before the court date, if I have given the police nothing to begin with then I think that places me in a stronger position in court than in an interview room.