Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

JellySaurus · 31/08/2022 11:48

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?

How significant is this report that claims the public feels police officers are "more interested in being woke than solving crimes"?
OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 16:29

Harry Miller literally won a landmark case against the College of Policing in the High Court.

Former police officer Harry Miller brought a judicial review against the College of Policing and Humberside Police after an officer from the force visited him at work over allegedly ‘transphobic’ tweets.
The High Court heldd^ that Humberside Police’s actions breached his Article 10 rights, with Mr Justice Julian Knowles saying: ‘The effect of the police turning up at [Miller’s] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.’

Miller’s wider challenge to the College of Police’s guidance was rejected. However, the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned that decision today. Giving the court’s ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp said the guidance did ‘sanction or positively approve or encourage unlawful conduct … which violates Article 10’.

She said ‘perception-based recording’ has a legitimate aim ‘linked to the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights of others’, which is ‘sufficiently important to justify interfering with the fundamental right to freedom of expression’. However, Sharp held that ‘less intrusive means could have been used to achieve those legitimate aims’.

The guidance requires the recording of a non-crime hate incident ‘if the perception of the victim or any other person is that it is motivated, for example, by spite or ill will against a protected strand, irrespective of whether there is evidence to support that perception or not’, she said.
Sharp added: ‘Thus, the guidance contemplates on its face the recording by the police of incidents as non-crime hate incidents, which are, to put it shortly, non-crime non-hate incidents.’

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/court-of-appeal-rules-police-hate-incidents-guidance-unlawful/5110987.article

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 16:34

From the judgment:

<span class="italic">In his statement PC Gu</span>l <span class="italic">accepts that one option that was open to him was to take no further action. They could also have advised Mrs B not to read any subsequent tweets. Both of those things would have served the objectives in question.</span>


<span class="italic">The fourth question is whether the impact of the rights infringement is disproportionate to the likely benefit of the impugned measure. I am quite satisfied that it is.</span> <span class="italic"><strong>The Claimant's Article 10(1) right to speak on transgender issues as part of an ongoing debate was extremely important for all of the reasons I have given and because freedom of speech is intrinsically important. There was no risk of him committing an offence and Mrs B's emotional response did not justify the police acting as they did towards the Claimant.</strong></span> <span class="italic">What they did effectively granted her a 'heckler's veto'.</span> 

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/225.html

My bold

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 16:37

You can read all the details about Harry Miller's treatment by the police and whether it was justified (as the linked text makes clear, it wasn't) in the linked judgment, @stillvicarinatutu and @Felix125

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 16:58

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 17:07

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 17:26

The problem is that they have been trained by the same organisations pushing the same ideological and political viewpoint.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 17:27

Police forces I mean. Many of them are in the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme.

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 17:47

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

AlisonDonut · 05/09/2022 18:02

Do serving police officers really not know about all this shit that's been going down for at least 4 years?

Honestly and in the nicest possible way, do your research!

It's all been documented and protested and complained about. Surely you know about all this?

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 18:14

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 18:17

Then maybe you should acknowledge you don't really know enough about this specific topic to offer any insight, other than general police procedural info.

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 18:17

And police Scotland has completely different laws to England and Wales .

Theeyeballsinthesky · 05/09/2022 18:21

stonewall say trans widows who do not affirm their former husbands female identity are abusive & include that in their definition of hate

They describe misgendering (or on planet reality correctly sexing people) as a hate crime even when the person doing it is themselves clearly vulnerable eg they have autism or learning difficulties. Of course it’s not nice to be misgendered but at the end of the day it’s hurt feelings not actual violence

they have invented crimes by as they call it “getting ahead of the law” and the college of policing have taken it all on board

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 18:23

Do serving police officers really not know about all this shit that's been going down for at least 4 years?

This is why it's a training issue. Certain groups have been allowed to completely control the narrative.

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 18:24

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

AlisonDonut · 05/09/2022 18:28

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

I know about all my ex colleagues that have been in the press, yes.

You are on a board where was have been discussing this for years. And you are telling us it doesn't happen.

Yes Scotland has different laws. None that say you should be taken to court for tweeting a picture of a ribbon though as far as I was aware.

As I said, in the nicest possible way, it might be worth doing some research on the topic.

I don't know which police force you are with but these are not isolated incidents.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 18:29

You haven't, you've tried to minimise and dismiss incidents as one offs, when posters are telling you that there have been multiple incidents over the last 4 years, including a landmark court case which affects the police, and they all come back to Stonewall Law.

pattihews · 05/09/2022 18:38

I mean you can give me any training you like but a crime is a crime and not a crime isn't !

But you've just admitted that Marian Millar and Harry's cases were non-crimes that were treated as if they were crimes. So was Jennifer Swayne's. Posy Parker has been visited by the police a number of times for saying things that people say every day. And Graham Lineman. So why did the police pursue these people and cases if there was no crime? What's going on? These are all people Stonewall would like shut down and silenced.

Here's a blog by a barrister, Sarah Phillimore, on her experience of having a non-crime recorded on her record. She's pushing for a judicial review of the College of policing.

thecritic.co.uk/post-hate-policing/

You can't say that these things never happen. They do. There is a pattern of the police carrying out oppressive investigations against people whom Stonewall, which has influence over every police force, want silenced. There is no evidence working in the opposite direction. The people threatening to kill terfs, inciting violence against JK Rowling, throwing punches at lesbians on Pride marches — none of them are prosecuted.

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 18:40

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 18:41

pattihews · 05/09/2022 18:38

I mean you can give me any training you like but a crime is a crime and not a crime isn't !

But you've just admitted that Marian Millar and Harry's cases were non-crimes that were treated as if they were crimes. So was Jennifer Swayne's. Posy Parker has been visited by the police a number of times for saying things that people say every day. And Graham Lineman. So why did the police pursue these people and cases if there was no crime? What's going on? These are all people Stonewall would like shut down and silenced.

Here's a blog by a barrister, Sarah Phillimore, on her experience of having a non-crime recorded on her record. She's pushing for a judicial review of the College of policing.

thecritic.co.uk/post-hate-policing/

You can't say that these things never happen. They do. There is a pattern of the police carrying out oppressive investigations against people whom Stonewall, which has influence over every police force, want silenced. There is no evidence working in the opposite direction. The people threatening to kill terfs, inciting violence against JK Rowling, throwing punches at lesbians on Pride marches — none of them are prosecuted.

I'm talking personally. Yes . Those jobs should never have been crimed . Had I dealt with them - I would not have crimed them .

pattihews · 05/09/2022 19:06

So why do you think the officers who went to peoples' homes to tell them off for their thoughts pursued them? Why was Marian Millar's case allowed to get to court, then delayed, and delayed again if I recall correctly? How many people were in involved in that and got it wrong?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/09/2022 19:12

VestofAbsurdity · 02/09/2022 13:55

twitter.com/SurreyPolice/status/1565347997944205315

Okay, @stillvicarinatutu and @Felix125 have a look at that twitter feed and then click on the ripx4nutmeg one in it. Now tell me and the rest of us what we all see as wrong with (1) the initial event and (2) the wording of the Surrey Police statement - I'll give you a clue the person who is being described as 'marginalised' is (a) the victim of the signs or (b) the person holding the sign?

Note also that the statement refers to gender identity when there is no such thing in law, no mention of sex or women naturally.

Now tell me that there is no fucking bias in the Police.

Two other recent incidents - the Get the L Out lesbians at Cardiff Pride - removed from the parade, did the police also speak to the person who was shouting abuse at them and ratcheting up the ante? Don't be silly. KJK's Let Women Speak in Bristol - did the Police remove, arrest or do anything to the thugs all clad in black that were intimidating and harassing the women at that particular event? Don't be silly.

Now tell me that there is no fucking bias in the Police.

I think you seem to have missed this post @stillvicarinatutu. Click on the Twitter link.

It shows a mealy mouthed apology by Surrey Police about a Surrey police car, in rainbow decals, at Pride, with a trans activist photographed sitting in it holding an abusive misogynistic sign about the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner, Lisa Townsend. Totally inappropriate and the kind of capture we are talking about here.

MangyInseam · 05/09/2022 19:26

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

No one is disputing what you saw. They are disputing the fact that you keep trying to say these things could never happen because they are not really crimes, or that there must have been more going on, or they are just unconnected isolated incidents, unrelated to the capture by groups promoting specific ideologies.

stillvicarinatutu · 05/09/2022 19:44

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

AlisonDonut · 05/09/2022 19:49

only if someone displays something like a Nazi flag in a window would I get involved

Just a couple of weeks ago two officers went to the door of a woman, because she had a sticker in her window - I think it said 'trans ideology erases lesbaians'. Two officers. They said it had been reported by a PCSO. After a discussion they found that she was ok to leave it up. A few days later, a PCSO came and started on to her - about how it was offensive. So that's 3 members of the police now, about a sticker in her own window. That isn't even offensive to a member of the public but to a PCSO - because they have had STONEWALL training.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.