How significant is this report that claims the public feels police officers are "more interested in being woke than solving crimes"?

[JellySaurus]

Home Secretary should reform failing police forces - think tank https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-627323366^

Very pleased to see this statement, and the BBC reporting it, but is it going to make a difference?

I'm sorry I just don't find it that funny.

Posie Parker was visited with the accusation that she was being 'untoward about paedophiles' in her you tube videos.

So I was wondering at what point any police person would think someone being 'untoward about paedophiles' was an allegation worth visiting someone about.

As two officers were on this thread I thought I'd ask if just the visiting would tick the crime box as being 'solved'.

As if not, and it wasn't just an easy crime solved win for the figures, it begs the question were they really worried about someone being untowards about paedophiles and is that a crime that warranted the visit in the first place?

This what people find it difficult to grasp .

And it's not funny .

Now without knowing what "being untoward about paedophiles " means I can't comment. Was she just generally saying I don't like paedaphiles ? (I'm with her on that) or was she saying mr x is definitely a paedophile so let's burn his house down ?

You that thing we have to swear - the police without fear or favour ?

It means sometimes we have to protect or act for people who least deserve it .

It sticks in my craw but if billy burglar gets his windows put through because he's burgled the wrong granny - we as police still have to go and see him , crime his broken windows , and investigate.
Police without fear or favour .

So just cos we may be personally are affronted by having to do that - it's pet of the job .

Like nurses or doctors having to try and save the lives of murderers or rapists or child killers . It's a job . We can't say no .

No, PP did not say anyone should bun down some specific persons house, or even anyone's house in general.

Seriously, 99% of people know that is not a good way to do things. That's not what people are upset about.

The point people are making is that there seems to be a clear pattern of specifically this kind of incident. And it is not in any way mitigated when you have groups of police wearing rainbow branding on their uniforms, making a big deal out of participating in Pride, and using Stonewall to provide their training and to indicate policy direction.

These things go together. And when that's combined with real issues around actually dealing with real crime, it makes for extremely bad optics. It looks like a public service form of corporate rainbow washing.

The fact that you are totally unfamiliar with these incidents makes your comments pretty useless, honestly, because a lot of them are not on point at all. No, we are not talking about people making threats. We are talking about things like Harry Millar's case.

So if an allegation is made - our job is to look into that allegation and decide if a crime has been committed or not. The only way to do that often is talk to people

The ‘crimes’ alleged in the cases we’re talking about on this thread were on social media, so why send someone out to check peoples thinking, or get their side when 2 minutes at a PC could have answered those questions for you?

PP a YouTube video, HM retweeted a limerick ( I don’t think they bothered to check the thinking of the person that wrote the original) and MM a tweet of a suffragette ribbon tied to a fence.

If the police are going to respond by sending at least two uniformed officers to check someones thinking, and this is then gleefully shared all over SM by the people making the complaints, then a) the complainants will continue to use you like their own personal (stonewall) law enforcement and b) those on the other side will be watching and think the police have become the stasi.

This thread is about woke policing. Evidenced by actual things that have happened.

These things have been widely publicised. Some people spoken to to check their thinking aren't even told what they did, that is kept from them until they get the bundle when it goes further.

The officers that visited Posie Parker couldn't tell her which video, nor had they even watched the video that supposedly had offended someone. just the mere fact that someone was upset was enough to trigger the visit.

That's what this thread is talking about.

Not knowing what we are referring to whilst telling us it doesn't happen when we've seen the footage, and the police behaviour of arresting people for just being there whilst activists shout obscenities from the sidelines doing the same thing that the women are being arrested for, smacks of woke policing.

Not knowing what we are referring to whilst telling us it doesn't happen

Lol. Yes, exactly this.

Yes. At enormous length. And referring to Billy burglar, too, as if talking to children.

Ok . But I am not the enemy here .
I'm leaving the thread . I stayed because I thought some insider insight might be useful and at least one person said they felt it useful but if all people can do is sneer at leave snide remarks then I'll leave you to it .

Sorry - been a way from the computer for a while

AlisonDonut
"....This thread is about woke policing. Evidenced by actual things that have happened..."

I could argue the same. What were they actually arrested for? It won't be for wrong thinking - as no such crime exists and it wouldn't have a chance of getting through custody.

You can't be arrested for tying a 'ribbon to a tree' - what was the original complaint to police detailing?

There is no crime of being 'untoward to a peadophile' - but was was being reported by the complainant in this?

And yes the complainant might have totally embellished or indeed lied in the initial complaint - but if it comes across as a crime, it has to be investigated.

What you are doing is looking at the result from one side of the coin and not believing that there may be a bigger picture to it.

Look at the example I gave a few pages back about an ex-partner sending a greeting to his former girlfriend - he could argue that he was wrongly arrested for sending a 'nice greeting' - but the truth is a lot more detailed.

Myself & stillvicarinatutu don't know the ins and outs of the incidents menationed, so can't really make accurate comments on the decisions that were made.

If someone complains to police - it is crimed if it passes the crime threshold. Then there are numerous ways in which the crime will be closed - crimed as detected - or undetected due to - the victim does not want to proceed, insufficient evidence to proceed, not in the public interest, out of court disposal, there are about 20 closure codes.

If its not a crime - we can still speak to the other person to get there side of things and perhaps 'nip things in the bud'. Early stage harassment which may not be crimed but can be stopped by a visit - probably worth it if it stops any more issues for the victim & subject.

Nellodee
if the police are persecuting people for holding gender critical beliefs, whilst simultaneously failing to deal with objectively more serious offences - then its clearly wrong.

But i would suggest (as is the tittle) the reason we can't get to most crimes is a resourcing issue and too much emphasis being placed on safeguarding to leave any resources free.

As i said before - everything is graded on threat, harm & risk. So the 'thought' crimes on social media would slide down the event queue as not being as important to say an ongoing domestic violence, which i get sent to. Once I'm at this DV case, that's me written off for hours - or perhaps the entire shift. Pretty soon, the demand outstrips the resources. The 'thought' crime will be gotten too eventually - or may be passed to a crime car or similar who soaks up such crimes which have sat on the queue for weeks without having anyone free to deploy.

Cops are fully aware of this and will 'write off' jobs quickly which do not merit any further police involvement - its just not worth their time to spend on it. So if its a job that someone has tied a yellow ribbon to a tree or someone has said on YouTube that peadophiles are not very nice - it won't merit any action, unless there is something more to it. We are not going to give ourselves tons of extra work when we don't need to - and can't anyway.

DdraigGoch
You can sign statements electronically - but they have to be written out and read by the witness/victim before they sign them. And i can't use a dicta-phone to produce my statement, that recording will have to be downloaded and becomes my exhibit. Then it will have to be transcribed so that the defence can see that what is written is what was on the dicta phone - its just a lot quicker & easier for me to write my own statement.

ScreamingMeMe
De-escalation doesn't always work - and clearly didn't work in this occasion as the officer was appears to have been hit in the face.

I can echo what stillvicarinatutu has said - it doesn't matter what their age is, if they have a weapon in their hand they can cause some serious damage. Wether this is a walking stick, heavy ashtray, chair, pen (i know of someone who was stabbed with a biro)

The officers who responded to it will have been called away from other job too. The vast majority of the shift would not have been able to respond as they will have been tied up with other jobs (safeguarding, hospital guards etc). So the ones that did go will have been pulled away from other jobs from the event queue which they are finally trying to get through.

MarshaMelrose
I agree - there will be certain things they can do - DV history, phone download request - but this is only small compared to the rest of the file. But, at present we don't have any of these admin staff to do that. I can't physically hand this to anyone.

And we're not dedicated to cases which are't going to court - case files are the ones which will be heading to court - or certainly requires CPS advice on them. Perhaps in the future the case file process can be simplified to make it possible for admin staff to complete the files, but at present the burden falls on the OIC to present the evidence to the CPS/court.

VestofAbsurdity
Why don't you believe that the male hit the police officer - where did her injury come from? You're basically assuming she is lying based on nothing. I'm not being defensive either - I wasn't there, but i can't justifiably say she was lying.

I have argued on here that this is a resourcing issue as apposed to police being to woke to investigate crime.

So how would you like to see the resource management adjusted to suite your needs to restore your confidence in the police?

@ItsLateHumpty
‘they didn’t bother to check the thinking of the person who wrote the original’

I should think they have been in their grave for decades. I was told a version of that limerick at school as a teen in the 60’s. We thought we were really cool repeating it. I suppose we’d be in the juvenile courts now.

So if its a job that someone has tied a yellow ribbon to a tree or someone has said on YouTube that peadophiles are not very nice - it won't merit any action, unless there is something more to it. We are not going to give ourselves tons of extra work when we don't need to - and can't anyway.

I was taking one example, that of a complaint being made against Posie Parker where the officers did not even watch the video in question, couldn't tell her which video caused upset or how, and yet managed to visit her at her home to tell her she was being 'untoward about paedophiles' The ribbon one, is about one woman tweeting a picture of a ribbon, but because the location of the ribbon was apparently too close to a certain actor's location he reported it and it was at one point going to court.

My question was, would attending and talking to the 'offender' cause a tick in the box to resolve this as a successful resolution which would then go onto the 'solved crimes' list that is used to monitor the local police force?

My question was, would attending and talking to the 'offender' cause a tick in the box to resolve this as a successful resolution which would then go onto the 'solved crimes' list that is used to monitor the local police force?

You're not going to get an answer to this, I'm afraid. One poster has flounced because everyone is mean, and the other is only capable of walls of tone-deaf mansplaining.

I appreciate that and we do have to ask it as there must be a really good reason for taking time out to go speak to someone about you tube or twitter.

If it isn't 'quick win here' then it appears all the crime in these places is sorted and they were able to move down the list to 'trivialities'. I'm betting there were burglaries that hadn't been visited or domestic violence that hadn't been addressed prior to these incidents in these areas.

No one is attacking you, we don't even know you.

People are talking about really egregious inappropriate behaviour by police forces, and you are giving explanations that aren't relevant to what actually happened.

Why not try reading up on these incidents, maybe you'd gain some insight into why people are so pissed off.

You said you were leaving, i was asking the other police person on the board.

I DID answer this specifically

You really didn't.

No-one is attacking you, hates you or thinks you personally are the enemy @stillvicarinatutu, you are the one treating the posters on this thread and the public at large for daring to criticise the Police as a body, not individuals, as the enemy.

You and @Felix125 apparently know nothing about any of the incidents highlighted on here, know nothing about the furore surrounding the College of Policing, know nothing about it being the Policy of some forces to do nothing about burglary or car crime but be super hot on Twitter spats and making sure that TRAs are never to read anything they don't like and telling the public how they must conduct debates, nothing about Police Forces aligning themselves with a political lobby group and advocating for the aims of that group. You claim that it is the fault of the media reporting on and highlighting the bad cops so you clearly do see reports in the media and then claim not to see any of the things that have been referenced and discussed on this thread.

This thread has set out just how many people who would otherwise be very supportive of the Police are losing faith, trust and respect which should concern everyone and all you can do is say not me, Guv, I'm not like that and anyway you all hate me which is hardly conducive to finding a solution to anything is it?

All publicly funded bodies are entitled to be scrutinised and criticised by the public when the public perceive failings therein, or disagree with the direction said body is going in, the general attitude of said body and the way said body is aligning itself with regard to policy or beliefs and attempting to enforce those beliefs on those who fund it. It does not mean that the public hate any particular individual working in those bodies and it is extremely childish for individuals working therein to think that and trot out that level of emotional language.

Serious, objective discussions are needed not childish language about hate accompanied by flouncing - that stuff should have been left behind in the teenage years.

AlisonDonut

"...My question was, would attending and talking to the 'offender' cause a tick in the box to resolve this as a successful resolution which would then go onto the 'solved crimes' list that is used to monitor the local police force?"

No. The answer is no. Is that specific enough for you thedancingbear.

If the attending officer believes a crime has occurred and it has passed the threshold test for such, an investigation commences. It only becomes a solved crime if there is sufficient to detect it. Otherwise it could fall into one of the other 20 outcomes (insufficient to proceed, victim declines to proceed etc etc)

thedancingbear
How am I tone deaf & mansplaining by stating that we don't have the resources based on the current procedures for risk management?

Just how is that mansplaining exactly....?

MangyInseam
We are trying to read the incidents, but we are only getting a small part of the actual incident itself.

If a ribbon was tied to a tree too close to someones house - and its almost gone to court - then what was the crime which CPS were considering? Presumably, this was the same crime which a person would have been arrested for - what was that crime, as it doesn't say in the texts?

There is no crime of 'tying a ribbon to a tree' but it may be part of a bigger picture.

Or do you assume that's not the case - and the police & CPS were actively perusing the ribbon occurrence only as a stand alone offence (which in law doesn't exist - but they thought we'll try anyway)?

For me - its a resource thing which is the main reason why police forces are struggling to get to jobs. Everything now has to be risk assessed & safe guarded. vulnerable people have to be watched whilst mental health teams can organises an assessment team, missing children from care homes are automatically classed as medium/high risk missing people if they don't come back to their care home by 9pm. And every night its the same 5-6 who go missing - and they of course learn where not to go to be caught by CCTV, police etc etc

This is where your police response resources are - not embroiled in ribbons being tied to a tree.

So I'll ask again - how would you change this?

Is anyone else wondering what I'm wondering? This is what might be classed as wasting women's time.

VestofAbsurdity
Which police force has a written policy of doing nothing about burglary & car crime?

Myself and stillvicarinatutu don't know a great detail about the incidents posted on here - but with all due respect, neither do you. You are looking out a small part of it, or the outcome of it.

I've asked a few times, but have got no response - what were they arrested for? what was the crime recorded as? What was the initial call to police regarding? Was there a bigger story behind it? Was the original caller to the police truthful and have they embellished their account to get a better response? - if so how could the police have judged that from the onset?

Without the full story - you can't pass an accurate judgement that the police have acted fairly or unfairly

I have said a number of times, that the main issues facing policing is a resourcing issue - the post above details it

But no-one here has answered my point of how that is to be tackled?

Do we go back to how we use to be and throw safeguarding out of the window? Do we allow missing from homes to come back of their own accord and not try and find them? Do we take a chance that suicidal people who have taken an overdose will stay in hospital and not try and walk out the moment the police have left them?

How would you solve this bit........?

lol - not really, this is a discussion forum and people are free to come and go as they please.

I've asked a few times, but have got no response - what were they arrested for? what was the crime recorded as? What was the initial call to police regarding? Was there a bigger story behind it? Was the original caller to the police truthful and have they embellished their account to get a better response? - if so how could the police have judged that from the onset?

The ribbon case was the Marion Millar case in Scotland, it was widely reported. Joanna Cherry MP and QC got involved on the side of Marion Millar, Google it and read about it. The case eventually collapsed at Court. The whole thing was malicious, Marion was subjected to an awful lot of harassment on Twitter including having her address where she and her two autistic children live published on line and what happened to those who did that? That's right, zero.

Without the full story - you can't pass an accurate judgement that the police have acted fairly or unfairly

As I said, the full story of this case has been widely disseminated and reported on so yes I can pass an accurate judgement thanks.

You talk about throwing safeguarding out of the window - irony overload there. Where was the safeguarding for Marion Millar and her autistic children? Where was the safeguarding for the disabled woman sent home at 3.00 am on her mobility scooter? Where is the safeguarding for women and children who do not want to share spaces with men and boys when they are vulnerable when Police take the side of the man or boy when the women and girls voice this? Where is the safeguarding for women when several Police Forces can't even list the Protected Characteristics in the Equality Act correctly and invariably miss out the one called 'sex' or replace it with gender, and change the one called 'gender reassignment' to gender identity? Where is the safeguarding for women when male police officers who now declare themselves to be women are entitled to search women? Where is the safeguarding when Police Forces are doing Stonewall's bidding in terms of getting ahead of the Law instead of applying the actual Law as per Statute?

These are all issues highlighted on this Board and this thread, you claim none of it is happening despite evidence to the contrary that you just can't be bothered to look into.

One final question - what is your Force's version of the Equality Act and the protected characteristics therein?