The police

Where have I said anything different?

My point is that you don't have to of been arrested to go to court.

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.

AlisonDonut
It goes back to what the reporting person is saying in their statement. You said yourself that you have no idea - and neither do I. But the OIC does.

So even if you ask 'someone who was there' what exactly are you asking?
If they saw.....what exactly?

So you have no idea of the circumstances of the complaint and no idea as to what is caught on Youtube or body cam.

And if you can say that KJK was on camera the full 100% of the time with no interruptions, and you have statements of continuity from one officer to the next who had them under total observations the full time (At 0915 PC Smith observed KJK from a distance of 2 feet constantly without any obstruction or break - then at 01136 hours passed this to PC Jones etc etc) - then that would be something, but i don't believe you do.

the officers there would be monitoring the crowd, not individuals and doubt there would be able to offer any evidence - they might not have seen anything, but it doesn't mean that an offence hasn't occurred. I bet there is loads of litter being dropped - but no one actual observed dropping any. We need to know what the complaint was to judge how the offence was alleged to have happened

Even the Bodycam footage will be sporadic and for different parts of the gathering - not just on KJK - and if the was activated at any point.

Brefugee
So you are saying if they have a background we should take that into consideration - I get that. But I am asking at what point do we start to ignore the complaints?

So many reports to police that don't result in prosecution?
So many criminal convictions against the reporting person?

Its like cry wolf - we ignore one of the complaints and something bad happens to them - who's fault is that?

Some DV's fall into this category, with one person always making allegations against the other. Is it a case of no smoke without fire or do we start to just class them all as malicious after a certain time frame?

lechiffre55
These are all part and parcel of complaints where we just have one account from the reporting person.

For example - someone approaches you on the street and waves his fist at you and says he will punch you. You are put in fear of violence but no punch is thrown. No CCTV, no witnesses, no supporting evidence other than your account.

This would be a common assault or a S4 public order offence

How would you want the police to deal with this?

Loads & loads of offences are like this with no supporting evidence and one word against another. Take historic rapes, sexual offences, breaches of orders, harassment, common assaults etc etc

If the reporting person provides a statement - that is their account which they are willing to stand in court and give. This is the primary evidence - witness testimony. If the suspect refuses to give an account, the court can only go with the evidence from the reporting person as they have nothing to stand against it - so it will not be laughed out of court.

What do you think should happen in these cases?

And I'm not saying its the accused party's duty to help - but it might help themselves if they give an account which prevents them from going to court. Otherwise, we have no other option - its like one word against nothing as they haven't given an account.

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?

FOJN
To arrest someone you need necessity - not grounds and it doesn't go on the amount of evidence you have. These are two completely different things.

In this case the police don't appear to have sufficient evidence to justify an arrest nevermind charges.

Any offence from dropping litter to murder - you can only arrest if you have the necessity to do so. If an offence is made out you have a duty to investigate. As part of that investigation, you can obtain the account from the suspect. This may exonerate them and the case is NFA'd without it going to court. It may not - it depends what is said and the evidence against them. if you don't want to incriminate yourself - then go 'no reply' to the questions asked.

But if you don't attend for a vol interview or go 'no reply' and don't give an account - then don't be surprised if you end up in court as the only evidence the court have to consider is that of the reporting person with nothing legally to stand against it.

If you were the victim of a crime - For example - someone approaches you on the street and waves his fist at you and says he will punch you.
You are put in fear of violence but no punch is thrown.
No CCTV, no witnesses, no supporting evidence other than your account.

What would you want the police to do if there was no necessity to arrest the suspect? For example - the suspect gives his details, his address is confirmed, there is no ongoing incident etc etc. You can't arrest him. What do we do if you want justice through the courts?

C&P'd and bolded again just in case anyone missed it.

just because a case has made it to court, it doesn't mean an arrest has been made. Cases go to court following vol interviews all the time.

just because a case has made it to court, it doesn't mean an arrest has been made. Cases go to court following vol interviews all the time. As above, its up to the police to investigate the account given by the suspect in interview (under arrest or as a vol interview).

the grounds only cover the offence - the arrest is only possible if you have a necessity to do it. If there is no necessity, you can't arrest.

If a person makes an allegation against you for example, and their is no necessity to arrest you - you have two options. A vol interview (at the police station or at your home address with a solicitor) or just be summonsed to court. if you are interviewed, you can give an account (I was at work at the time of the offence) which will render the case null and void - no court required. It just prevents you being summonsed to court if you can say why you were at the time. If you don't want to say, fine, then we have only got the reporting person's statement as chief evidence - so you will probably be summonsed to court. Just save you time and hassle of going to court.

You've just made it very clear that a voluntary interview is never in the best interests of a defendant.

You make out that you can be summonsed to court to answer charges just because you refuse to attend a voluntary interview but you fail to mention that you will need sufficient evidence to justify the charging decision. In this case the police don't appear to have sufficient evidence to justify an arrest nevermind charges.

@Felix125
Why should KJK have to attend a voluntary interview when the police already don't have enough to go in front of a magistrate who will just laugh them out? Why have the police not looked at it and thought to themselves "You know we've got fuck all here?

We do, you have the statement from the reporting person which describes a public order offence. This is what the OIC is investigating. The OIC is offering an opportunity for KJK to be interviewed and give her account. If not we have only got the reporting person's statement as chief evidence with nothing to counter it.
What would you want the police to do if a reporting person only has their account with no other supporting evidence?

If you think that's enough to prosecute then arrest and stick KJK in front of a Judge. My guess is that it's nowhere near enough. The judge would throw it out and the police would get sued.
It's not KJKs duty to help the police investigate. You keep assuming it's the accused party's duty to help the police. It's not. Most of the time helping the police goes against their own interest. The fact you don't have any corroborating evidence is no one else's problem.

What would you want the police to do if a reporting person only has their account with no other supporting evidence?

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.

I don't see that a complaint has to be malicious to waste police time. The complainant, surely, could be mad, bad or sad but, if the complaint is unjustified, the effect on the police (and the person complained about) is the same.

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

I have said that we have to take each compliant on its merits - you can only prosecute for a serial complainer or wasting police time if you have evidence against them that there complaint is malicious.

you haven't answered my question at all. So you will look at 47 fucking complaints and treat each one as a single event with no background? IS THAT YOUR FUCKING ANSWER? because that's what it looks like.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c0edec82-6d08-11ed-b8ae-c57034dfa905?shareToken=b169bff4cc6f58a4a055f212611e6317

Get off social media and go knock on some doors...which is what would be on Bosch's mini office wall these days. Go find actual evidence to solve some actual crimes.

So the local police automatically inform all police that they were there just in case an incident is reported

If an incident that happened at an event that is attended by many police officers, is on you tube many times, has the body cam footage from officers and knows there will be footage the person in question I'd expect one of you to think 'hang on, why not ask someone who was there'? Bit of a leap for you guys I get that. Just one of you. That's all it takes. One person to put 2 and 2 together at possibly the most evidenced event in Brighton history.

Presumably, all officers who were there had their body cams running. So if none of them pressed the button to 'keep this recording' you'd assume that nothing untowards from the women's side actually happened. [I am referring to your earlier admission on the other police thread that you policed the whole time, that officers only press the button to save footage if needed, it films constantly so they'd only press the button if something was kicking off].

Surely that would be PART of this INVESTIGATION! Ask our own colleagues who were all there. Simples.

stillvicarinatutu
Over to you - not sure if you can word it differently.

AlisonDonut
So the local police automatically inform all police that they were there just in case an incident is reported?

And the OIC (who maybe from a different force) is aware of this from the onset?

They may know who she is as the reporting person has identified her.

But - as you have said - you don't know what the reporting person has said.

Brefugee
I have answered your points - if you don't understand - just ask

I have said that we have to take each compliant on its merits - you can only prosecute for a serial complainer or wasting police time if you have evidence against them that there complaint is malicious. You can't just assume because they have made complaints in the past that have not gone to court that they must be malicious all the time.

A can rock up to the police and say "B did something illegal" and the police will go and talk to B even though they were standing there at the time and didn't do anything.
You don't know they were stood there 100% of their time - unless you have their statement - I have mentioned this before.

And yes A can make an allegation without any other evidence. Most reports to police are one word against another. Take DV harassment, common assaults, breach of non mol orders. Does A have to provide evidence with them otherwise the police should take no further action from the start? How do historic rapes and sexual assaults fit into this?

DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter
We are talking about police interviews under caution - either under arrest or as a vol interview. So R v Roberts [1942] 1 All ER 187 is irrelevant here.

cigiwi
You say, 'Oh and evidence works both ways ...'
You have to investigate the offence as a whole - not just from one side. So if the suspect is interviewed and gives an account, you have to investigate that account. "I was in a shop at the time, or I was at work". You can only present it to court once all the lines of inquiry have been examined. That's why there is sometimes insufficient evidence to proceed. the court wont take it otherwise.

But really that should not be the case. I have done no wrong. It should - must - never be the case that I should have to prove myself innocent. The shoe is - and ought to remain - firmly on the other foot: it behoves any accuser to show proof of my guilt, and failing such proof (which cannot exist, as I have done no wrong), I remain, of course, innocent and free as the proverbial bird.
Exactly - the reporting person has to provide some sort of evidence - but this can be their statement only. This will be enough to start an investigation - but it will always be difficult to prove as it is word on word.

But just because it is word on word, should the police take no further action because the suspect doesn't have to account for their actions? Lots of offences fall into this category from rapes to sexual assault to DV assaults with no injuries, to harassment to breaches of restraining orders.

What would you want the police to do if a reporting person only has their account with no other supporting evidence?

FOJN
just because a case has made it to court, it doesn't mean an arrest has been made. Cases go to court following vol interviews all the time. As above, its up to the police to investigate the account given by the suspect in interview (under arrest or as a vol interview).

the grounds only cover the offence - the arrest is only possible if you have a necessity to do it. If there is no necessity, you can't arrest.

If a person makes an allegation against you for example, and their is no necessity to arrest you - you have two options. A vol interview (at the police station or at your home address with a solicitor) or just be summonsed to court. if you are interviewed, you can give an account (I was at work at the time of the offence) which will render the case null and void - no court required. It just prevents you being summonsed to court if you can say why you were at the time. If you don't want to say, fine, then we have only got the reporting person's statement as chief evidence - so you will probably be summonsed to court. Just save you time and hassle of going to court.

lechiffre55
"OK were you at the counter protest?" "Yes, can you prove it?" "OK so in this photo of people all covering their faces and wearing black grey uniforms, which one are you?" "So you are the guy with a baseball bat with kill all TERFs written on it?" "And you felt threatend by the women in floral patterns?" At some point in normal person land this gets seen as a good old British farce.

And what if the reporting person says - yes I was not anyone of them people - I was the one standing close by in a normal T shirt with no baseball bat or mask. And the specif threat by the women in floral patterns was XY and Z

But you wouldn't entertain that as a possibility?

Why should KJK have to attend a voluntary interview when the police already don't have enough to go in front of a magistrate who will just laugh them out? Why have the police not looked at it and thought to themselves "You know we've got fuck all here?
We do, you have the statement from the reporting person which describes a public order offence. This is what the OIC is investigating. The OIC is offering an opportunity for KJK to be interviewed and give her account. If not we have only got the reporting person's statement as chief evidence with nothing to counter it.

What would you want the police to do if a reporting person only has their account with no other supporting evidence?

the other group is isn't collectively capable of violence because they are women and lack the natural males urges towards violence and male bodies.
Are you saying women can not be violent then? And police shouldn't even consider this as a possibility?

please don't feel obliged to come back to this @stillvicarinatutu - i hope you feel better soon

Brefugee

I will come back and answer your q but I am really unwell today , my eyes won't work . I'll come back when I feel a bit better.

I get the feeling a lot of women think the police are "out to get them"
Would you say that to any other group discussing how policing policies have impacted their community?
The issue is not that women think the police are out to get them. The police are being influenced by lobby groups.

Which is your force

Sorry, posted too early.

According to Felix A can rock up to the police and say "B did something illegal" and the police will go and talk to B even though they were standing there at the time and didn't do anything. It is beyond belief. No looking through the very available video evidence (bodycams?). Just "oh, right you are, A, don't worry we're on it"

i appreciate you coming here @stillvicarinatutu and since Felix keeps ignoring it and obfuscating and adding to my disdain for police officers like them (not all, the ones like Felix) perhaps you can explain how it works with serial complainers.

How long is one person/organisation allowed to constantly harass someone by shouting to the police at the drop of a hat about their hurty feels before the police say: ENOUGH you're nicked?
Because in the case of the one(s) reporting CF and KJK and FemmeLoves it seems: infinately. For ever and ever Armen until the end of the world and these women have to suck it up.

In the case of one young woman being stalked and harassed it was not many and BAM! fined. And then, as we know, murdered because she was telling the actual truth and not reporting hurty feelz.

And the complete and utter refusal to engage in a meaningful way with this question means that I am completely not listening to anything else Felix says. Because none of it is in good faith.

Am also aghast at the notion that an actual honest to god police officer thinks people can or should prove their innocence. That is a very very telling notion and the phrase "low hanging fruit" comes to mind. Again.

@stillvicarinatutu
I think you are engaging in good faith, and you are probably a good police officer. But I still feel uneasy. I think it because being a police officer seems to at the core slant an individual's outlook, and how they go about things.
On the KJK protests.
You have two groups of people who have diametrically opposed beliefs in very strong and emotional opposition. One group has a protest/event, the other group turns up to protest the original protest. One group turns up in black block gear designed specifically to make identification of individuals by the police difficult, the other group turns up in colourful clothes with no attempt to hide or mask their faces. Very easy to identify. The black block group is very agressive and violent, the other group is isn't collectively capable of violence because they are women and lack the natural males urges towards violence and male bodies. They just want to be heard. This much so far is obvious to any observer I believe.
Someone from the aggresive side makes a complaint to the police against the women. It seems at this point all logic and common sense goes out of the window. The women now are a threat, or have comitted a meanspeak crime. There seems to be no filtering by the police going on at this point. "OK were you at the counter protest?" "Yes, can you prove it?" "OK so in this photo of people all covering their faces and wearing black grey uniforms, which one are you?" "So you are the guy with a baseball bat with kill all TERFs written on it?" "And you felt threatend by the women in floral patterns?" At some point in normal person land this gets seen as a good old British farce.
Where did the police just give up on common sense and proportionality?
Lets go back to the voluntary interview question because it is the basis of this thread. Why should KJK have to attend a voluntary interview when the police already don't have enough to go in front of a magistrate who will just laugh them out? Why have the police not looked at it and thought to themselves "You know we've got fuck all here? Maybe we should go solve some rape cases instead." "I hear Bradford is lovely this time of year" "Ohhh no don't fancy that!"
From a purely logical point of view it can only either stay the same or get worse for KJK if she attends. It cannot possibly get better for KJK by attending.
I'm very sorry that good officers like yourself get tarred by the idiots, but for as long as the UK police keeps humouring the idiot activists within the force the reputation of the police is only going to continue to suffer and get worse. It is not the general public diminishing the reputation of the police, it is the police themselves diminishing the reputation of the police through their own actions.

But Felix is right on the facts here . The police would be ripped to shreds in court if they didn't follow every available line of enquiry to either prove or disprove an offence.

Well of course, we all understand this but if a case has made it as far as court then an arrest has been made. It's the implication that a voluntary interview is an opportunity for a suspect to "give their side of the story" which is causing confusion. I thought the job of the police was to gather evidence for the prosecution to make it's case. Checking the veracity of information given by a suspect is necessary to prevent them looking like incompetent tits in court if the defence presents evidence which proves their client could not possibly be guilty. All of that information can be gathered in a formal police interview if you have sufficient evidence to justify an arrest.

I have read some of what felix125 the bobby says on this thread. It has been interesting and instructive, albeit perhaps not in the way he or she thinks.

We - ordinary citizens - have learned, many of us, to be wary of police officers and their behaviour. Why? ... And is our wariness justified?

I think felix's posts - yours too - unwittingly show wariness indeed to be justified. Here is one example. (One among many.)

You say, 'Oh and evidence works both ways ...'

But really that should not be the case. I have done no wrong. It should - must - never be the case that I should have to prove myself innocent. The shoe is - and ought to remain - firmly on the other foot: it behoves any accuser to show proof of my guilt, and failing such proof (which cannot exist, as I have done no wrong), I remain, of course, innocent and free as the proverbial bird.

The asymmetry here is encoded in the maxim 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why is it so important? Perhaps I could leave you with that question: consider, in trying to answer for yourself, how you might think of the matter as a citizen of present-day Hong Kong ... or of Franco's Spain, perhaps (or, indeed, of Tudor-ruled England and Wales long ago). Consider.

Thing is, for reasons probably clear enough, it is an occupational hazard of policing in any circumstances that practitioners will tend to become inured to such maxims as 'innocent unless/until proven guilty' and the safeguards thereby encapsulated.

You have fallen prey to that hazard, with your 'evidence works both ways' ... felix falls, likewise and perhaps even more egregiously, with comments such as '... their opportunity to put their side of the story across in an interview and provide evidence to show they are innocent.'

No. A society in which citizens need to prove their innocence is a tyranny. Police officers, in the nature of their calling prone to tyrannical thought and action, require careful regulation to avoid the dreadful consequences of such thought and action.

I know you mean well, you and felix both. That's plain, I think. But you show by your posts here that we should indeed remain very wary of policemen and women like you.

1. You've confused a statutory Defence statement under the CPIA 1996 with a written pre-prepared statement in interview. They are not the same. That confusion doesn't answer my central point re communication of RLI outside interviews.
2. You've misunderstood the evidential value of PCS which are self serving. You are now eliding that with a RLI point and not answering the point I made which regarding "gathering evidence".
3. R v Roberts predates modern hearsay/confession law.

The thing is though @stillvicarinatutu is you appear to be engaging with the very real concerns of women on this thread (although I did think your posts on another thread were a bit cloth-eared) However, @Felix125 seems to me to be talking over women, not looking to acknowledge their concerns. Felix is like that audience member at a seminar who when the guest speaker concludes and asks for questions, Felix steps up and says "Its not so much of a question but more of a statement I'd like to make, it will come in 3745 parts and will focus entirely on my world view and will not engage constructively with what you've said"

Oh and evidence works both ways - if an accused person does have an interview and says "that couldn't possibly be me because I was in Tesco doing the weekly shop - we have to check that out - get that cctv evidence to disprove the accusation. We aren't just out to prove an offence - we have to question people - guilty or innocent to establish the facts and present them - if someone is making up a spurious allegation and we can prove that the job would get thrown out before getting anywhere near court . I e given tickets to people who have made shite up for wasting police time - if it can be proven they're lying .

The police should never have become the enemy of decent normal people abiding people exercising their right to freedom of speech .

Hey alll

I've been trying to stay off here but I have to say without any bias because I've been really looking at this stuff and reading the threads and the links .....

But Felix is right on the facts here . The police would be ripped to shreds in court if they didn't follow every available line of enquiry to either prove or disprove an offence .

I don't have a huge amount of confidence in some officers or forces who are receiving the woke training and are indoctrinated by trans ideology, stonewall and mermaids bullshit - but Felix is factually correct in what he is saying . You might not like it - but it's true .

As I said before - we are simply the evidence gatherers. That all evidence- in favour of the complainant OR the suspect - that's the idea of an investigation- if the evidence isn't there it shouldn't get to court . If it is - it's a magistrate or judge and jury who decide on guilt or innocence.

I get the feeling a lot of women think the police are "out to get them " and that simply shouldn't be the case at all- this is the issue with the police who should be neutral being given biased training in favour of being so politically correct that it clouds common sense , investigative mindset , and no I wouldn't trust much that some forces and officers are being taught .
I think from reading Felix posts he is pretty old school much like myself . It's difficult to try and explain procedure as it should be done when clearly some officers/forces are bias and to
An audience who is deeply mistrusting of the police anyway .
I'm truly sorry that's what so many women feel now . We're just two old school bobbies on the beat trying to do the right thing - Felix says his force haven't had this training by stonewall et al and I can assure you my force hasn't . Our force is led by a woman . I like what she says . Our force also has a pretty equal % of men and women - when I joined there really weren't enough women in the job .

Both myself and Felix can only speak from our experiences, although I'm well aware of failings and politics and why the public are so mistrustful. It does pain me . But I can't change the world , I can't make people trust the police as a wider organisation and all I can do is keep raising the issues here with focus groups and managers although this is now becoming detrimental to my career as it happens - but I do t really care . I've no aspirations to be promoted and I do t really care if I ruffle a few feathers of the self serving cloth eared fools at the top.

You don't have to like us - but Felix and I are I think being truthful and factual and trying to explain some procedures that anyone not a police officer , detective , would understand.

I'm not saying that to patronise - but we are supposed to be neutral , no sides taken , no simply believing one persons word against another - we work on facts - it appears there are some massive failings and they are very public (good!) but not institutional I don't believe . Well - not in my force or from my own experience. Clearly many on this thread and board have had a different experience.

Felix - you win. You have talked at me and ignored what i've written in favour of what you would like me to have written so you can write more of your meaningless bullshit. Just stop.

I was very very clear. You are either too thick or too not-interested to address it properly. Please stop.