Suella Braverman statement about police behaviour and TRA police officer response

MargotBamborough
Harassment is a course of conduct crime - so the individual acts do not need to be linked by a certain crime type.

If I scratch your car on your house driveway, then send 50 postcards to you in the post, then 100 abusive phone calls in the middle of the night. Then suddenly stand outside your place of work (a public place) one day for 3 hours.

You can link all of them together as a course of conduct crime.

The criminal damage to your car and the mall comms relating to the abusive phone calls will be stand-alone crimes in themselves

But you can also link me standing outside your place of work to the harassment.
Even though its a public place and in theory no specific crime has occurred - I have a right to stand there. It can however be linked to the harassment.

Brefugee
One photograph of a sticker? BAM! 3 officers paying a visit.

And has the reporting person said anything else.....?

GailBlancheViola
West Yorkshire Police said it had recorded the matter as a 'non-crime hate incident', adding: 'Words of advice were given regarding the placing of the sticker, as it was reported to have caused offence.'

So there was a report made by someone. Not just police reviewing CCTV off their 'own bat'. Most council CCTV is monitored by their staff by the way - not police.

It has been reported to have caused offence. And what else has that reporting person stated...???

Yes - all jobs are graded on threat, harm & risk, so some crimes will be placed on the 'as and when' queue. We don't have the resources to attend all of the jobs straight away.

Crime surveys:
They ring back random victims of crimes - so you get to hear from one and all.

I've just skimmed this thread - many posts obviously there is little point in reading - but I do wonder if Felix gets a kick out of winding up women and particularly out of wasting their precious time and headspace. That's not to say that Felix's disingenuousness shouldn't be called out, or the limits of their arguments noted, but perhaps engaging at length confers too much credibility?

I bet they don't ring the victims of crime who they have done nothing for do they? Or the ones they have just given a crime number for insurance purposes and told them to just get on with it as they have no time to investigate the theft from their home of their property even if said victims have CCTV of the persons involved?

National surveys may well include those who have been arrested or prosecuted but that still doesn't explain this:

YouGov has routinely asked Britons (between 1,627 and 1,820 people at a time) about their confidence in the police to deal with crime in their local area. The first survey for this was in July 2019, when 53 percent said they had “a lot/a fair amount of confidence” whereas in April 2023 this decreased to 39 percent.

I emphasise deal with crime in their local area - do you seriously think that result is skewed by people who have been arrested or prosecuted?

or this:

Surveys conducted by the polling organisation YouGov indicate a loss of public confidence in the police:

• YouGov’s monthly tracker “Are the police doing a good job” shows that over the course of 2020 an average of 70% of respondents thought the police were doing a good job relative to 21% who thought they were doing a bad job. However, by April 2023 these figures were 47% and 44% respectively.

• Similarly, the proportion of people who had not very much confidence or no confidence at all in the police to deal with crime averaged 38% in 2020. As of April 2023, this figure had risen to 53%.

Those are large percentage swings. The Police are rapidly losing the public and as the police are given powers other members of the public do not have as you are policing with the consent of the public that is a serious problem.

The Police are failing to do the job the public want and expect them to do and all the public hear in response are excuses and then watch as the Police faff about speaking to a woman who photographed stickers.

You're probably right but this nonsense does need calling out all the same.

At what point do the police say, "Look, we can see you are upset by all the stickers and books and people who don't agree with you, but none of these things are crimes and you need to toughen up a bit and stop calling us to intervene in things which are not police matters."

Does that ever happen?

Margot please, please don't. Please. I know you've had a break from here, but lots of us haven't, and we just know you will never ever make a dent.

But what IS the link between the damage to the car and the sticker?

Deliberately damaging someone's car is a crime directed at an identifiable individual (the car owner).

Taking a photo of a sticker is neither a crime nor an act directed at an identifiable individual.

Even if we have CCTV footage proving that the same person keyed a trans person's car AND photographed the sticker... hell, even if we have footage proving that the same person keyed a trans person's car and PLACED the sticker, I do not see how it is reasonable to treat these incidents as linked. Because the placing and the photographing of a sticker in a completely different location to the car has absolutely nothing to do with the car, or its owner.

Even if Margaret knew the car belonged to Samantha and deliberately keyed it because she knows Samantha is trans and she hates trans people, Margaret is completely within her rights to take a photo of any sticker she damn well pleases and this has got absolutely nothing to do with Samantha.

Alternatively, Margaret might fully agree that trans women are women and have only photographed the sticker to show her partner how terribly bigoted people are these days, but have keyed Samantha's car because she had no idea who it belongs to but she is sick and tired of them parking like a twat.

at the risk of flogging a dead horse. To Felix:

A consistent sustained and well-known harassment of a woman - police can't work out that it is consistent and sustained because, reasons

One photograph of a sticker? BAM! 3 officers paying a visit.

You literally couldn't make it up.

If any other organisation had spent that amount of time to reduce faith in the police and government as WYP did in this one single case, they would be guilty of multiple counts. But WYP it's just doin the jerb.

In the sticker scenario it is clear the Police have decided she placed that sticker, the lady has denied it and no evidence has been produced to counter her denial.

Furthermore @Felix125 on the basis of Police allocating resources and being (apparently) unable to attend multitudes of actual crimes, deciding when one is reported where in the pile it sits even if there was a phone call about said sticker it should go on the pile of ^to be dealt with sometime within the next millenia, the Police do that regularly with actual crimes such as theft don't they?

That is appalling that the person is still at work.

Give all this fantasy what if stuff regarding the woman spoken to and having a non crime hate incident recorded against her a rest @Felix125 it is clear from the reporting and the Police's own fucking words that there was no more to the visit than her act of photographing a sticker.

The police log, which she obtained via a data access request, stated that they had given her 'words of advice . . . regards the harassment and alarm that this sticker could potentially cause to the community'.

West Yorkshire Police said it had recorded the matter as a 'non-crime hate incident', adding: 'Words of advice were given regarding the placing of the sticker, as it was reported to have caused offence.'

The women in question denied placing the sticker there and there is zero evidence that she did do so. She was identified on CCTV taking a photo of it, not placing it.

Note the word potentially not did not part of a protracted harassment against an individual.

So, again, please stop with the fantasy bollocks. From the evidence available it doesn't appear that anyone made a direct complaint, it seems the Police decided off their own bat on viewing the CCTV to act on the hideous crime of photographing a sticker.

MargotBamborough

OK - so we will stop using the Margaret and Samantha scenario, not sure who brought that up!

The damage to the car (if any) of course will be criminal damage in its own right. But if its all linked together - it will also be a crime of harassment, same people involved so it is a course of conduct crime. hence 2 crimes to consider.

Again - it will depend on what the reporting person has said when they contacted the police.

And why this has managed to get past a call taker, a dispatcher etc before being deployed.

And when deployed and investigated it was concluded that no crime has taken place - but both parties needed to be spoken with to establish this. If you just take the account of the reporting person, then it may have been judged as a crime, but having spoken to the older lady that crime can now be negated.

Well this is all very far fetched, but OK, I'll continue to humour you.

You say, "Let's focus on the criminal damage to your car, because taking photos of stickers is completely legal and to be honest if all we've got is CCTV footage of Margaret taking a picture of a sticker, and no evidence that she even knew you were watching her as she did it, it's not going to be enough to make out a harassment claim and if anything is only likely to make Margaret's lawyers suggest that you are paranoid. So back to the car. What evidence do you have that Margaret has been involved in criminal damage to your car?"

Just as a reminder, we are firmly in the realm of the fictional scenario at this point, because the woman who was interviewed by the police for photographing a sticker is not alleged to have harassed anyone or damaged their car, trans or otherwise. She literally just took a photo of a sticker. It bears repeating because there are actual, real people here. There is a real woman who was interviewed by the police for photographing a sticker, which caused her harm and distress. And there is a real person who observed her take a photograph of a sticker and reported her to the police in circumstances where there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was part of a pattern of anti-trans behaviour or even that the person who reported her was genuinely distressed. And there is at least one police officer, probably more, who looked at those facts and instead of telling the person who called it in to get a bloody grip, decided to pay the poor woman a visit to talk about her interest in stickers.

GailBlancheViola
You need to look at individual forces who ring back the victims of crimes for the surveys.

National polls will also include a lot of people who have been arrested, prosecuted etc

LarkLane
....I will well and truly serve the King in the Office of Constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people....

Is that to all people - or just the ones that you think we should support?

So, this reporting person doesn't fit into this category and should be ignored regardless of what they are reporting?

MargotBamborough

So Samantha states that Margaret witnessed Samantha putting up the poster outside Samantha's shop for example. So Margret knew that the poster was personal to Samantha. In the past Margaret has keyed Samantha's car, has thrown things at Samantha's car. Has walked past Samantha's window sticking fingers up. When ever Samantha is walking down the street, Margaret shout abuse etc etc.

And now Margret witnessed Samantha putting up this poster and within a day, she takes photo of it, knowing that Sam was watching her. Samantha believes that Margaret has done this deliberately and its all part of the ongoing harassment against her.

Samantha now feels that they can not get on with their life with looking over their shoulder.

So do the police just say to Samantha - sorry, we are not going to support you in this as no offence has taken place as its all simply about taking a photo of a sticker and everything else is irrelevant.

Dearie me, such scorn for certain members of the public. Forgotten the Oath? Perhaps a refresher is needed when portraying oneself as an Officer of the Crown.

....I will well and truly serve the King in the Office of Constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people....

Felix.

How is photographing a sticker part of a series of incidents which could constitute harassment?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that on one occasion Samantha observes our elderly TERF (let's call her Margaret) keying her car. Both Margaret and Samantha are directly involved here because Samantha is the car owner and Margaret is the person who has damaged it.

Then two weeks later Samantha observes Margaret photographing the sticker.

What is the relevance of the sticker?

The only person involved in the photographing of the sticker is Margaret.

Photographing a sticker is not behaviour targeted at a particular individual. And as you correctly observe, harassment requires the same individual to have done numerous things against the victim. Photographing a sticker is not something Margaret has done to Samantha, is it?

So how can it form part of an allegation that Margaret is harassing Samantha?

BoreOfWhabylon
Casual ageism. Age is a protected characteristic.
Do better Felix.

Just because its a protected characteristic - you can still have an opinion on it.

Religion is a protected characteristic - does that mean I am not allowed to have an opinion on that either?

Do better next time BoreOfWhabylon

To go back to a point @Truthlikeness made in the OP, regarding the Twitter account(s) of what turns out to be a serving Police Officer.

Last I knew, TW serving Leics. Police Officer Lynsay Watson, had been served with a Gross Misconduct Notice . At that time, the Officer, under various sock accounts, had sent Harry of FairCop 860 abusive messages, including threats of violence.

The Officer also had sent thousands of messages about, and to, GC women.

The Officer, however, was/is allowed to continue working whilst awaiting a CPS decision to prosecute. Their " file" had been handed to Lincs. Police. ( I think it was)

Has anyone an update on what is happening? Watson seems to now be calling for the " fascist pig" Home Secretary to be the target of abuse? Is Watson still at work?

(Bearing in mind that we have MPs who have been murdered, or nearly murdered, in recent years)

Yet CF gets a full posse at the door, her child with autism and family traumatised, and all the shit that is ongoing.

MargotBamborough
The sticker might be seriously affecting the person's life. But it is not a crime.

The reporting person might not be just saying its about 'putting up stickers and taking photos of stickers'. They might go on to say its harassment as the the same person has done numerous things against the reporting person day after day after day. Tampering with their car, graffiti etc etc.

So the crime that they might be suggesting is harassment, which will need o be investigated.

The term 'old' doesn't mean a great deal - I sometime think the older a person gets, the more childish they become.

Casual ageism. Age is a protected characteristic.
Do better Felix.