Suella Braverman statement about police behaviour and TRA police officer response

If Fotheringham were truly concerned with the most vulnerable in society & not “the most vulnerable in society” he wouldn’t be taking issue with this.

Ohhh! So not meringue!

It's the PSA's Annual Conference. Hence the noise from an organisation rarely listened to. Paul Be Kind Fotheringham is likely to be keeping his options open for his next job by defending the need to merengue.

No need for it. Keep it neutral, impartial, respectful, safe as possible, if you are policing an event. That's it.

I doubt very much that he'd get a majority of his membership agreeing with him regarding the Bravermann letter if he put that in a Motion to Conference.

Jesus Fotheringham, do you really have to be allowed to merengue at Pride to be able to avoid being a dick to your employees over the sex of people they have relationships with in their own time? Like, is it an either or?

i don't think Fotheringham really understands what is to be investigated. It isn't so much that some officers dance at pride (and may or may not be part of the LGBTQ+ community) but that some officers seem to be prioritising being at the back and call of the "permanently outraged and frightened of old ladies with a camera phone" over assaults and burglaries.

ALL the police need to do is be transparent about what they are doing. That is it.

I'm a little reluctant to revive this thread because.....reasons

but

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/12/police-leader-questions-braverman-clampdown-on-officers-impartiality

I know 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' isn't always true but I think it applies here.

I like the big chunk of Braverman's letter quoted at the end. To me it says 'See! This is why we need an investigation'. I understand that people who do not share my outlook will fail to see the problem in any of that.

I wish I could report you to professional standards. If you are actually a police officer, you’re neither professional, nor in possession of standards. You are a disgrace.

I don't know, assuming you're talking about Felix I think it's been a useful exercise in demonstrating that Suella Braverman, for all her faults, is absolutely right to crack down on the police.

I see one of the usual culprits has completely murdered this thread beyond being useful or relevant or readable.

DOES THE STICKER FEEL HARASSED? CALL THE COPS.

Felix, the legislation is very clear. It is not enough for someone to be upset. The behaviour has to be directed at a person, it has to be behaviour which a reasonable person would consider to be harassment, and it has to happen on at least two occasions.

None of those criteria are met in this situation.

I repeat: it is not enough that someone is upset. You cannot commit harassment accidentally because an unspecified person happens to be upset by something they happen to see you doing in your daily life.

Now perhaps the person who reported the sticker incident to the police is genuinely upset. If that is the case, they need to seek professional help to enable them to become more resilient so that they can function in society. The police taking their complaint seriously is more likely to hinder that process than to help it. The police should have explained to this person that they need to be able to exist in society, along with people who do not necessarily share their views or their taste in stickers, and that they can't expect the police to go round having words with everyone who doesn't live in their rainbow coloured bubble.

More likely, this person is not genuinely upset, but is simply a malicious complainer who wants to cause trouble for people who do not live in their rainbow coloured bubble by reporting completely reasonable and legal behaviour to the police, because they have learned that the police will not tell them to grow up and stop wasting everyone's time, but that they will collude with them to make life difficult for people who do not share their views by acting as though photographing stickers is a police matter when in fact it clearly is not.

You are really not helping to counteract the impression many people now have that the police are an absolute disgrace, and that they are neither competent nor impartial.

MargotBamborough · Yesterday 14:28
OK Felix, riddle me this......

Because that what harassers do - they often do just enough to cause harassment, just to let the other person know that they are still there and haven't left them alone.

They won't go over the top - because that would be obvious to your 'reasonable person'.

So based on what the reporting person states, that its all linked and all part of the harassment and 'Margaret knew exactly what they were doing and did it to cause more harassment' - do the police just totally ignore it?

Or do they at least speak to all parties concerned to establish if a 'reasonable person' would find the behaviour harassing?

I have had plenty of experience with what CPS use as charging standards for harassment, convictions at court and victim's personal statements in relation to it - so you don't have to explain how to investigate harassment to me.

I take it as a lawyer you have never investigated harassment?

Unelected but with so much influence

Can’t get rid of them

They have haven't they? Stonewall instruct the NHS what to call women, how to rename and eradicate women from maternity services & health care, instruct schools & everywhere else that males who require access to girls and women undressing, showering and even sleeping must be granted access and so on.

I'm glad that Glinner will be still be speaking. I'd like to go and see him give that speech.

"Ignore the minister, she's transphobic."
It's like Stonewall et al have formed an alternative government.

I'm not entirely sure when this happened but it shows complete contempt for Suella Baverman. She's been very clear about non crime hate incidents and freedom of speech before now.

Glinner has been invited to speak at Tory Conference Freedom of speech event. However the GMP refused accreditation.

Apparently once the Tories found out they reversed the decision.
Don't tell me the police don't need sorting.

https://twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1700054403842019795?t=9NodI62G53w9qL7e11oQyw&s=19

As a serving traffic warden with 177 years in the harness I’m appalled

yes I agree. I didn't serve in the Border Force for 65 years just to come on here in my spare time to read this.

I have to say that I am a little disturbed, on this thread and others, about people making up fictitious back stories. These stories are then used to justify the appalling behaviour of some police areas. I can only hope that anyone doing this is not a serving officer.

So they are actively spending time building up and recording patterns of behaviour. And then spending so much time building up and recording patterns of behaviour there is no time to do anything about ACTUAL behaviour.

Thinking of you at this difficult time
It is indeed getting tedious, so off for some Tunnocks.
Thumbs up, and may all your National Trust visits meet expectations😊

Ditto.
I did wonder what the lengthy first year criminal law exam scenarios were all about Margot.😁Your big reveal gave me a laugh.

Also a legal bod (rtd) and police and firefighter family and friends. Of several generations. So not anti police for those who think we are here to police bash for the sake of it.

I've no time for corrupt, criminal, self serving, afraid to challenge piss poor decisions, and/or thick police officers of any rank. An increasing minority it seems - despite reviews, lessons will be learned and other weasel words

I welcome the Home Secretary's letter wholeheartedly. I'm sure the pissed off burgled public will, as a pp says. We just want good, honest, impartial, resourced coppering. That's what the majority of decent police officers want.

GC women are NOT the baddies here for calling out bad policing and leadership.

Those claiming to be Officers, boasting about how important they are and what they do, endlessly deflecting and talking rubbish on a board not designed with them in mind, insisting they have a RIGHT TO BE HERE, aren't the real thing. IMO. We see their agenda.

Mostly, I choose not to directly engage.

OK Felix, riddle me this.

If Margaret was aware that Samantha, a person she has previously engaged with in a way she knows or ought to know Samantha found upsetting on at least one occasion, was present in the place where the sticker was, and intended to engage with her in such a way again (making two incidents which taken together could constitute harassment)...

...why did she choose to harass Samantha by photographing a sticker?

Isn't that a bit...weird? And random?

How many people think, "Oh look, there's that person I don't like, I know, I'll photograph this sticker! That will really upset them! Hahaha!"

Wouldn't Margaret, I don't know, turn to Samantha, point at the sticker and say, "This means people like you need to keep out of women's spaces" or something a bit more obvious than that?

Because as I have pointed out to you several times now, harassment is behaviour which a reasonable person would consider to be such.

How many reasonable people would consider photographing a sticker in a public place to be harassment?

Now please stop with the "you have no idea how much harassment can affect someone's life". I do, in fact, having been the victim of harassment which I did not even report to the police because, frankly, why bother?

I should not have to explain to a police officer what harassment is and what it is not. You should know. And you do know. You're just trying to blind the general public with science to justify why your colleagues are investigatng thought crimes instead of real crimes. Unfortunately for you, this member of the public is a lawyer, and not impressed.