Ereshkigalangcleg
Now you are embellishing it wildly, aren't you? Before you were trying to make a laboured case for recording non crime hate incidents, so they were just "dolls of non white background" implying he was racist. Not child dolls. How much drip feeding are you going to do?
It doesn't matter - either your argument is good, or your argument is bad.
If you are saying that nothing like this should be recorded anywhere - then it won't matter what is added or embellished so long as its not a crime.
Mr Smith is visited by police - they see that he has child dolls dressed in school uniforms. He freely admits to playing out violence sex acts with them and enjoys 'rape' scenarios
Mr Jones is visited by police - they see he has loads of of posters on his walls against all non-white people. He openly states that he has been on various EDL type marches and hates anyone who is non-white.
Mr Thompson is visited by police - they see loads of stuff concerning being anti-trans people and openly admits that he has a hatred of them and doesn't agree with anything they say or stand for.
So for each scenario you would say that nothing should be recorded anywhere. So nothing will come back on any DBS or similar check?
So you would be fine with Mr Smith applying for a job in a nursery school. Mr Jones applying to work in a multi-ethnic secondary school. Mr Thompson applying to work in a support agency for trans people.
And you would happily grant Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson a fire arms licence if they applied for one - as there would be nothing recorded anywhere to stop it.
You can't see any problems with this?
If the wheel falls off and Mr Jones takes his gun to school and starts shooting people - it wouldn't be an issue that police had the information on him but were not allowed to disclose it anywhere?
You would just say that there was nothing the police could have done to prevent it?
Answer my question about whether I should be able to report my child's teacher to the police for watching hardcore porn at home. It's misogynistic in the extreme, he shouldn't be teaching young girls.
Yes - of course you can report it. If you're looking at a criminal offence however it will have to cross that line. Will it specifically need an officer to attend and investigate further will depend on what you actually report and how it will be graded. But there is nothing stopping you reporting it.
Is the women's testimony not good enough for you?
When apparently the testimony of some arsehole who phoned up with a vexatious complaint was.
So, you have one side of the story - you need to get the other. Or do you want the police to just believe one person over the other without speaking to both.
So when the "arsehole phones up with a vexatious complaint" does the call taker immediately make a judgement that its vexatious right from the off?
What ever the initial call was - its gone through a call taker, a dispatcher and a comms operator before the job was passed out to a police officer. So that's three brains (maybe more) that have had a look and assessed it and decided it needs further input before it can be closed.
AlisonDonut
None of that matters when the two officers stand outside a house and read a sticker does it?
They can surely to goodness read the words and work out that it isn't in any way a threat and just walk away.
Yes - I'm happy that the sticker would not have said anything untoward - but what else was told to the police or call taker when they spoke to the reporting person?
stillvicarinatutu
I agree that what the PCSO did was wrong - and have said as much all the way through this. Its the initial call and the police officer deployment which i am querying.
FoundDoris
Body Cams - there are not on at all times as the batteries would run out. They last about 2-3 hours before they start to go, so you have to use them selectively. usually at incidents, DV's, violent attacks etc etc.
They are triggered to activate if they receive a sudden jolt - sometimes when i have been attacked they have started automatically
They also pre-record 30 seconds prior to activation. So, when i hit the button to record, the footage will start 30 seconds prior to me hitting the button.
The footage then gets downloaded onto the database and rests there for 30 days. Anyone can then mark it as evidential, which drops onto another system and is there permanently. I think that it should be automatically permanent, but the powers that be site the cost of data storage - i do mark all mine as evidiential, no matter what the incident was.
If a complaint comes in about how an officer behaves - the footage will get marked as evidiential.
Hope that helps
NecessaryScene
The addition of 'human Rights' in the oath - this is where your safeguarding will lie. So a suicidal missing from home is not breaking any law - but he does have 'a right to life' - so the police are now given powers & direction to persue this.
If we have a credible threat to some one, we have a duty to safeguard that person
It all comes down to my argument on safeguarding and how most of our time is tied up with that as apposed to woke issues.
ScreamingMeMe
Yes - there are loads of incidents where the police mess up on and get it wrong. And dynamic incidents can suddenly change and a decision has to made on the spur of the moment on how to proceed with it.
So the protesters banging on the window - yes public order offences all day long - but say you have 50 officer policing the event and 100 protesters banging on the windows. That's 2 lock ups each and every officer is now sat in custody waiting to book & process their prisoner - with no one left to police the protest.
Jennifer Swayne: arrested for stickers - there is no such offence as 'stickers' - what was she actually arrested for?
But such protests and incidents with stickers are few and far between compared to the day to day incidents which response policing has to deal with. And, in my opinion, the reason why we can't deal with crime effectively is that fact that were are all tied up with safeguarding issues.
It happens on our shift every day. When we speak to officers in other forces, they say the same. We might need them to do a missing from home search at the other end of the country - and they will show they have no officers available due to officers at hospital with prisoners or safeguarding victims etc etc.
This is where the real problem is - but once we have gone down this route, I can't see a way back from it
Cell watching is another one - drunken bloke arrested for D&D said that when he wakes up he is going to banging his head off the wall of his cell - officers have to cell watch him. That's 2 officers watching a bloke who is asleep, just in case he wakes up and bangs his head.