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?

Here's the thread, Felix. It includes transcripts and links to recordings.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4611524-woman-told-by-psco-that-her-thinking-is-wrong-and-she-needs-to-educate-herself

pattihews
But you will still need to go and speak to the other party - even if its just the get their side of the story

Otherwise, you will have a scenario where we speak to the reporting person - who may tell you a version of their truth which embellishes things and makes out that the 'sticker person' is intrinsically evil, has made a massive hate campaign against them and the rest of the community. They might say i have received loads of abusive text messages from them (which I had to delete as they were that bad).

So, just on speaking to the reporting person - it sounds horrendous - and the sticker in the window is the just the tip of the iceberg. Do we just close the job of as this? The sticker person is evil & harassing.

or do we go and speak to the sticker person to get their side of the story?

We might go there and the person freely admits to sending abusive text messages - strange things do happen. or they might just say the sticker is the only 'issue'.

If it is the sticker which is the only issue - job gets closed. I don't see anywhere that the officers have said that the sticker is wrong - in fact they left it in the window. This way, the sticker person is aware of the complaint and that the police are happy that they have done nothing wrong.

I can't justifiably not go - just in case we are too frightening to the 'sticker person'. How will that look to the reporting person - 'sorry we are not going to speak to the other person just in case we are too scary' and definitely not if that person is a women as they tend to be law abiding.

AlisonDonut
No - if a number of people complain, then perhaps we need to look into it. And like I say, people tend to embellish things - so what we get reported to us is often not what we find at the scene.

The other person would know - because we have been to their address and spoke with them.

Officers have been and concluded the job with what they have found - no offences disclosed, only a sticker in the widow which is not offensive as was reported. Or, sticker merely expresses and opinion - not a police matter.

How the government then record this is another matter

I would agree that this shouldn't go any further and not reported as a non-crime, non-hate incident. Perhaps it should be closed as 'non-event'

But then you have the issues of what enhanced DBS checks pull back - i think it was Ian Huntley that had loads of non-crime, non-hate things which would have come back on a DBS check if it was done and he wouldn't have got the job he had with children

And i can perhaps see that if you're an employer who's looking to employ someone to support trans-people for example. An enhanced DBS check pulls back loads of incidents of non-crime, non-hate opinion types jobs which shows that the perspective employee has quite starc opinions against trans-people. The employer might think that information has been a good thing and they are not the right person for the job.

The ticky-box thing that you mentioned before seemed to suggest it was some sort of performance indicator. This is not the case, the jobs are closed as we deal with them with what we find. If a government body wants to find statistical data in this, then that's a government issue.

And no - we don't have rainbow cars, or rainbow lanyards, or stonewall training. The last training we had was about negotiating suicidal people from a bridge, and marauding terrorists. I don't even have a lanyard as it would bee too dangerous for us to have around our necks - just a warrant card which we put in our pocket and use as an ice scraper in winter.

Perhaps our force and the neighbouring forces are doing things right then.

Ereshkigalangcleg
no - it will be one incident and closed.

not sure why they went to his place of work - were other lines exhausted?

ScreamingMeMe
Yes - and I have said the PCSO was wrong to do this.
This will not change the original conclusion by the police officers who attended

PCSO's are not police officers

But then you have the issues of what enhanced DBS checks pull back - i think it was Ian Huntley that had loads of non-crime, non-hate things which would have come back on a DBS check if it was done and he wouldn't have got the job he had with children

The CRB was invented due to Ian Huntley. To try and capture behaviours. Perhaps if he had just just put a sticker up, he'd have been caught earlier.

The ticky-box thing that you mentioned before seemed to suggest it was some sort of performance indicator. This is not the case, the jobs are closed as we deal with them with what we find. If a government body wants to find statistical data in this, then that's a government issue.

Yes, the outgoing prime minister today quoted crimes were down. We know it is a government issue. You seem to not know how your own stats work, and to think we shouldn't be asking this as it is all far above our pay grades to be concerned about it.

If you'd been here for any length of time you might know that many of us worked at high levels in our own jobs and are quite capable of understanding how governments use stats we give them. My own reports have been used in parliament so I understand how it works.

My query is regarding the behaviour of officers and if the ticky boxes are NOT being used to increase 'solved' stats, then what is the motivation to go and send two officers for a fucking sticker!

Logic seems to be completely lacking in these two representatives on this thread. You don't understand what it is we are saying and yet, keep coming back and making our point again and again so thanks for that.

What are the two words at the start and end of PCSO?

Is it not 'police' and 'officer'?

AlisonDonut
My query is regarding the behaviour of officers and if the ticky boxes are NOT being used to increase 'solved' stats, then what is the motivation to go and send two officers for a fucking sticker!

As i mentioned in the above post - the motivation is to investigate what has been reported to us.

So if you have someone who makes a report and embellishes it somehow to make it sound horrendous - is the call taker able to read between the lines and just dismiss it? Or do they send someone to 'check it out'

Doesn't mean to say there are a police officer. They are civilian community support officer.

Our PCC has a staff officer to help with the administrative duties in the office.
They will be the Police & Crime Commisonser's Staff Officer. So the first two words at the start and end of that are the same - doesn't mean to say that they are police officers.

I'd ask 'what does the sticker actually say'.

I've already recommend you add this to the process to save TWO officers from making trips to one individual to 'investigate'.

Two officers, one for back up in case the perpetrator had a poster in the hallway?

And you wonder why people think you are a joke.

Look at the behaviour yesterday. One officer telling they would have recorded a sticker as a non-crime hate incident and yet when it was pointed out that their verbal abuse of us was a non-crime hate incident pulled all their posts and ran away.

The job title is literally POLICE community support OFFICER.

The real issue is that we can't get to jobs due to the shift being tied up with safeguarding issues, guarding prisoners at hospital, mental health cases, chasing around after missing from homes.

These jobs of attending houses which have a sticker in the window really are few and far between

But everyday, our shift is wiped out by safeguarding and all that it brings with it.

Every prisoner we lock up now has some sort of problem where they need to go to hospital. So, we have to take them as custody won't take the risk. We use to just put them in a cell and monitor them - but not now. So, we take them to A&E because they feel a bit ill - and of course we are at the back of the queue as more urgent cases take priority (and rightly so) - but that's another unit off the run.

Missing kids from care homes who just don't want to return by 10pm and fancy staying out. That's our responsibility to find them as they will be classed as medium/high risk. When we find them, we take them back. But the care homes can't lock the doors on them - so off they go out again - and off we go again.

This is where the real problems in resoursing lie

so, the thread title are "..police more interested in being woke than solving crimes.." I would suggest we can't solve crimes due to demand outstripping resources due to the amount of safeguarding we now have to do.

And how do we solve this - remove the safeguarding and go back to how we use to do it? Domestic cases where we just send both parties to different addresses and hope everything works out?

No idea. Why not do as suggested by the other police officer and speak to your MP? Should sort it.

AlisonDonut
there are teachers who work at school - they act as a first point of contact if we need any inquiries doing, address checks, CCTV etc concerning the school.

They are called Police Liaison Officers - first & last word, are they police too?

Banks have the similar Police Liaison Officers as staff members - can i get them to investigate my fraud jobs and arrest people?

A PCSO has power of arrest. They don't work for banks or schools.

Are you being deliberately thick?

A PCSO arguing with someone over a sticker terrified a woman and her daughters. But you are saying that's fine, because these things are few and far between. Even though she could now be targeted and th system gamed against her, without her knowledge and with no right of reply.

And you can't even get your head round this even after careful patient explanation you are denying it is an issue. Even with more than one example?

How many examples do you need for it to be more than few and far between?

A PCSO has powers of arrest. They don't work for the banks, or schools.

Are you being deliberately thick?

A PCSO arguing with someone over a sticker terrified a woman and her daughters. I'm sure telling her its fine, these are few and far between, just get over it isn't going to dispel her of the fear of being targetted again.

Which we now is how the system gets rigged. And you can't even get your head round it. Even after careful patient explanation.

WE, th3 public that you are employed to serve, are telling you that 'woke policing' is a problem, Felix. All you do is excuse and deflect.

Never mind the reources, although why should ANY be wasted on the bollocks - what about the people who are being approached by the police about these stickers and social media posts?

Have you ever stopped to think how stressful, upsetting and time-consuming it could be for them? Marion Millar, Harry and Posie I believe had to wait MONTHS to learn whether they would be charged. I'm sorry but "Well actually more resources go into other things and we have a really hard job you know" isn't going to cut it.

AlisonDonut
PCSO's don't have any powers of arrest, any more than you do or any police liaison officer does.

And I have said that the PCSO was wrong in the example quoted and should not have gone back and argued with her following the police officers visit - so no, I'm not saying its fine - where have i said that? So - are you being deliberately thick?

And I'm not denying its not an issue - what i am saying is that out resources are being outstripped by demand due to safeguarding issues - not because we are attending too many 'woke' things.

Our resources are depleted regularly by safeguarding issues - not woke jobs, this is why we can't get to so many crime incidents.

And i can perhaps see that if you're an employer who's looking to employ someone to support trans-people for example. An enhanced DBS check pulls back loads of incidents of non-crime, non-hate opinion types jobs which shows that the perspective employee has quite starc opinions against trans-people. The employer might think that information has been a good thing and they are not the right person for the job.

That would be illegal discrimination if they based it on this woman's sticker. Gender critical views are legally protected. You are stuck in the idea that people have the right to flag my opinions for wrongthink. That's because you can't see past your training on these issues.

Yes, the all taker can ask

person replies - "its an horrendous sticker that says death to everyone and has very explicit language on it - and its on every window and they are now putting them on lamp posts and other people's houses"

What do you want the caller taker to do?

if the person replies - "its just one sticker - nothing abusive and just expresses their opinion"

Caller taker would probably write the job off

Two officers - usually a police unit is double crewed for the shift - so domestic type incidents or ongoing issues can be handled by one unit. We don't keep coming back & forth to drop each other off when the next job doesn't require two officers on the face of it. But the you never know how a job will go or if you get diverted to something else.

I'm really not even sure why you're bothering to post on this thread, you seem to think documenting the boring minutiae of your job admin is an answer to people feeling that the police have an issue with gender identity ideology. It is not. We have concerns because there is a clear lack of partiality on display, and all you have done is deflect, like tutu also did.

person replies - "its an horrendous sticker that says death to everyone and has very explicit language on it

That's a lie, then, and they should be investigated for wasting police time.

And the Ian Huntley case had nothing to do with hate crimes or non hate crime incidents. He had a history of sexual assault, rape and a history of sexual interest in underage or younger girls.

www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/ian-huntley-the-soham-murderer

DBS checks were only brought in because of Huntley.

ScreamingMeMe

WE, th3 public that you are employed to serve, are telling you that 'woke policing' is a problem, Felix. All you do is excuse and deflect.

But you have to prove that such 'woke' things is deflecting significant resources away from crime. I would suggest that its the safeguarding protocols that having a more significant impact on it. And the reason for this, is that I see our entire shift (and the other shifts) depleted regularly for safeguarding protocols as apposed to woke things.

So i ask the question - do we go back to how it use to be and don't do safeguarding and just take the risk that hopefully nothing bad happens?

Ereshkigalangcleg

Would you be happy to learn that say Ian Huntley had loads off incidents of being found in the park with child dolls which he would dress and undress. Then he had loads of those hyper-real dols that he would play with and dress up in weird & wonderful clothes. But its OK not to use any of these reports and have him as a caretaker or child minder at the local school.

PCSOs have 20 standard powers and a range of discretionary additional powers which may be granted by the local chief constable should he/she believe that they are required to respond effectively to local priorities.

From:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-community-support-officer-powers.

Inferring that they are random general public with no power is a gaslighting.

Also, in the case of Posie's You Tube videos - the officers at her door stated that they had had a report, hadn't watched the video, couldn't tell her what video it was that upset the person complaining and that they would report back to that person her response.

The police are being manipulated, especially into recording non crime hate incidents and are reporting back to random people who make spurious complaints as if they are their boss.

This report is saying 'sort it out and stop being so woke'. I agree. Many people agree and yet police are completely in denial that it is even happening.

Exactly - but you're not going to know this until an officer attends.