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?

Felix, do you think we know nothing about Ian Huntley?

Do you think we are all stay at home mummies with porridge for brains?

AlisonDonut
PCSO's don't have a power of arrest

I'm not in denial of it happening - what i am saying is that 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.

Stop being silly - where I have said this?

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

So do you go after people who waste police time to weaponise police reports against other people for perfectly legitimate opinions?

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.

Is this a non crime hate incident?

saying is that you have to prove that such 'woke' things is deflecting significant resources away from crime

She doesn't have to do anything of the sort, she isn't accountable to you, you're not the arbiter of whether she can hold an opinion that you have so far failed to engage with in any depth.

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.

This.

Who then, presumably, sees that the sticker is completely innocuous, and absolutely not breaking any law. He/she doesn't need to knock on any doors because the thing is stuck in the fucking window for everyone to see - that's the point of it - and just walks away, satisfied that nothing untoward has happened.

No need to harass or frighten anyone. Some of your precious time saved. 'Crime' solved.

What am I missing here?

Yes I know, but he was accused ofand indeed committed actual crimes. Not non crime hate incidents, which weren't even a thing then. So I'm not sure why Felix has brought him up in this context.

But you have to prove that such 'woke' things is deflecting significant resources away from crime.

Why does it have to be 'significant' resources? It's still a waste of resources.

And people have already told you it's not just about resources: it's about not remaining politically neutral, it's about some officers overstepping, its about making yourselves into a laughing stock (because trust me, you are).

And I will say, I think for the second time, that I don't think anyone would have a problem with more resources spent on safeguarding. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as if it's a gotcha - it's not.

You read aand you reply, but I don't think anything is really going in.

Sorry, silly little stay at home mummies.

Are you aware that sex offenders can now change their name to a female one, transition [aka say they are women] and come out of prison into the wider community and not have to declare their dead names, which means that DBS now relies on their self-declaration of their old names and creates a loophole that any old sex offender can use?

Because of wokeness over-ruling common sense.

I know. I'd have thought two police officers could have just read the words and walked away. No need for a conversation in any way.

This is why I think the box ticking of having 'solved' the issue is the key. I don't believe that two officers could justify looking at one sticker without something being behind them as a motivation for an easy win.

Just three more bad apples in the barrel... www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/20996844.gwent-police-officers-sacked-gross-misconduct/

A new 3-part series, Can the Police Keep Us Safe?, has just started on BBC Radio 4; seems fairly sympathetic to the pressures on the police: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00194fw

I've heard that sticker woman is indeed putting her complaint into regarding the PCSO, not to a school or bank though, to the police.

And the PCSO is probably feeling a bit shaken today as she saw sticker woman in an adult human female t-shirt today. That's another non crime hate incident on the file then.

Where did you hear this about Bella Doe Alison?

Yes - if it can be proven, yes

ok - he has a loads of dolls of say from non-white back ground which he performs various gross things to in his home because of prejudices he has against ethnicities? nothing illegal done.

Are you happy for him to be offered the job at the school?

You do if you're trying to prove a point in an argument.

thedancingbear
Because the reporting person, who has embellished the initial report - will have to continue this on when the police arrive. They are wanting police involvement to go and see the 'sticker person' - so have gone to the bother of phoning the police and made a spurious account to get a police response - do you think they are going to stop now?

reporting person will know that the only thing visible is the sticker in the window - so they will have to invent something else which will makes the police attend the address.

And I apologise in advance if you think I am mansplaining by this comment.

ScreamingMeMe
Its not a case of overstepping the mark - it will depend on what is reported to us - embellishments and all. If the report was 'someone has placed a non offensive sticker in the window' the call taker would probably bin the job off at source. So the reporting person 'invents' other factors to get a police response.

"...There is a nasty offensive sticker in the window with loads of abusive comments on it and they have also posted loads of things to my address of a threatening nature..."

Are you happy for the call taker to just write that off at source?

You read and you reply, but I don't think anything is really going in.

What I am saying is that our resources are depleted by safeguarding issues - which is why there are no resources left to investigate crimes. Resources are not depleted by woke type jobs, but are by safeguarding issues.

Response shifts and local police teams deal with the vast majority of incoming crime jobs together with all the other emergency & priority jobs (suicidal people, DV's, burglaries, thefts, missing people etc etc). Our shift is regularly depleted of resources, the outgoing shifts are the same and we have to 'mop up' what ever they can deal with and their handed over prisoners. We then pass on jobs to the oncoming shift that we can't get to or prisoners we cant deal with - and so it goes on.

That's what is depleting the resources - not woke type jobs on the queue.

And its certainly the same picture from friends who work in neighbouring forces

What should we do about this?

AlisonDonut
People can change their names - but their dates of birth remain the same, so they are traceable under this. There are also provisions in place to ensure that prisoners can not slip under the radar like this. Do you think that a child sex offender can just simply change their name on release from prison and get a job at the nearest nursery with a seemingly clean record?

The box ticking thing - its not some sort of performance indicator - its a job on the queue that gets dealt with. If the government want to record how jobs are concluded, that's their area. Police attend a job, deal with it, provide a sequel such as 'crimed as a theft' 'no offences' 'false call' etc and move onto the next. We don't get bonuses of chuffty points for the jobs we get sent to.

I hope the person has put a complaint in about the PCSO - I have said that they should not have gone back around after the police officers concluded the original job.

I don't know why they would complain to bank though.....?

It was yourself who said that said a PCSO has the words 'police' and 'officer' in their job title - and implied that they are the same as a 'police officer' which is not the case. To emphasise my point i gave examples of other jobs that have the words 'police' and 'officer' in their title and are not 'police officers' either.

PCSO's don't have any powers of arrest, any more than you do - which was another thing you mentioned.

Fucking hell it's like talking to a brick wall.

If you can't be bothered to read people's posts properly Felix, I'm certainly going to be scrolling right past your long screeds of waffle from now on.

@Felix125

the reporting person, who has embellished the initial report - will have to continue this on when the police arrive... [they] will know that the only thing visible is the sticker in the window - so they will have to invent something else which will makes the police attend the address.

Any evidence for this?

No, thought not.

You're just making shit up now. You're not worth bothering with. But you are confirming every single thing people already know and suspect about you and your misogynist buds.

If it gets reported in the second manner, you can see why the police may have to attend

Two officers though? In an age where officers are often (unsafely) single-crewed when being sent to actually dangerous jobs, it's amazing that two get sent to deal with trivia.

And why a follow-up visit from a PCSO?

Two officers working together couldn't read 3 words on a sticker. I think your hopes of any of them absorbing a sentence and understanding the meaning is way off base.

Now, don't worry your silly little head of trivialities and leave that to the clever policepeople, who have trouble understanding 3 words on a sticker. After all, they are here to serve and protect or something I guess.

The box ticking thing - its not some sort of performance indicator - its a job on the queue that gets dealt with. If the government want to record how jobs are concluded, that's their area. Police attend a job, deal with it, provide a sequel such as 'crimed as a theft' 'no offences' 'false call' etc and move onto the next. We don't get bonuses of chuffty points for the jobs we get sent to.

Yes, we understand that the government want to know how jobs are dealt with. That's the point of asking. I want to know that if a complaint is closed off as 'solved' when an officer speaks to the 'offender' which would go towards government statistics when they report back to their electorate as percentage of crimes solved. This isn't rocket science.

However I can see why no crimes are solved if you guys don't even understand the concept of a crime, or a resolution to the crime. You seem to be spending all your time on non-crime. Which is the point of the original article.