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?

At what point do you want it classed as a 'crime' as apposed to 'not a crime'?

So, if a victim phones up and reports a crime has occurred to them and an officer goes and speak with them which confirms the account - do we class it as a crime - even before we do anything else or speak to the other person?

If we speak to the other party and they deny any 'crime' has occurred (and there is no other evidence to get) do we close the job as 'no crime has occurred'

But none of the examples i gave you show any of them are peadophiles - he enjoys doing this with dolls - no offences?

And how about Mr Jones & Mr Thompson - any concerns there that need to be recorded somewhere? - after all its just their opinions

Felix.

Has anyone ever been sent to prison or been fined or had to do community service for pretending they are having sex with a doll?

If so what was the charge?

Yeah, how many people don't understand the nitty-gritty of the tech they use daily in their jobs? Most I suspect.

And it's pretty common to hear tech people talk about things that are listening to us as "not recording" even though in a certain sense they must be using memory of some kind to function in stand-by mode.

But - presumably the PCSO reported it as something more than:

"I'd like to a report a non-offensive sticker on a window that expresses an opinion, is not offending anyone and is not illegal"

And when asked - she has to embellish it further as the above report would not have been worthy of any kind of police involvement

Unless - this is how it was reported and its been a huge mistake from day one at every level

But, unless we see what this original report was (and the THRIVE that went with it) - we can't really judge it

How many person hours has been spent on one sticker? It is ludicrous.

Yes - but how many police officer hours are spent on guarding someone at a mental health hospital through safeguarding.

Or chasing around after a missing kid from a care home who will just go missing again as soon as you take them back because the staff can't lock their doors due to the kids human rights

Or cell watching a drunken male just in case he wakes up and starts to bang his head on the wall

Again, last night we were completely wiped out through safeguarding issues and 3 hour queues in custody to book prisoners in and about 12 missing from homes.......

This is where the real problems lie with availability of police to go to crimes and investigate them

No - that's the point. No crime has occurred.
Its just his interest, his opinion
So, does the scenario with Mr Smith need to be recorded anywhere if the police happen to speak to him and he says what he does. Mr Smith has no criminal record, no convictions - not even a parking ticket to his name.

Isn't the real larger question around the fact that there seems to be increasing numbers of people who believe thought crimes are a thing?

Which in part seems to be because there is so much priority given by so many to various forms of being nice, and teaching on the importance of protecting civil liberties seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Personally, I think in many ways this relates to the whole idea of hate crimes, as opposed to simply crimes. It's almost build in they will go in that direction.

But, unless we see what this original report was (and the THRIVE that went with it) - we can't really judge it

My point is that two people caould have literally read it. Stand in front, read it and then walk away.

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.

These are the 3 scenarios you mentioned.

None of the above is actually illegal. But it seems you are compiling secret reports on these people. You are saying that those with impure thoughts are not allowed to participate in society. But who decides what is 'impure' and what is 'hate'? This is not your decision to make.

And if he commits a crime, then surely the evidence is about that crime? Not prior wrong think? What if the man who doesn't like non-white people commits a burglary, does that make knowing that he didn't like non white people in any way relevant? Or will you use a potential piece of information eg there was a non-white person on the staff of the place burgled so we can make this a hate crime? So he is now guilty of burglary and a hate crime? When all he was actually doing was stealing a loaf of bread to feed his 8 kids? Will that fact be used in his defence?

Its no wonder judges take so long to try and unpick all this mess.

Much like the time travel 30 seconds in the past it seems you are trying to preempt crimes, keeping records of this and yet completely allowing actual criminals and crimes to go uninvestigated whilst you are doing so. Which completely supports the original report.

The UK needs a complete overhaul and for the rainbow lanyards and police vehicles to go, and to be cleaned up from top to bottom. It is going to take years to clear out this utter shitshow. When officers themselves cannot see what they are doing.

Yes - two people can read the sticker. But what else was on the initial report? And what else did the initial caller report and say to police? "There's loads of things in the address too which may be an offence to have"

We need to know this before we can make a judgement on what the two officers decided to do.

No, the burglary scenario wont be a hate crime unless you can link the actual crime to the hate part. So, in interview he admits that he targeted that building because non-white people use it, this would be a hate-crime. If there is no admission, It may be later added as mitigation - but it cannot not be used to class it as a hate crime purely based on his prior reports to his thinking.

But - for Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson - any prospective employer will not be able to see any information on these people - not necessarily as a crime, but say as an intelligence log, or a sequel to a closed non-crime event.

They all have no previous convictions and if we should not record any wrong-thinking, nothing will flag up on any DBS checks or similar. So the employer will employ them.

Then if something happens down the line and a child is attacked by Mr Smith or a trans-person is attacked by Mr Thompson - would society think that the police had information to share that could have prevented this?

The BWV has been explained to you - its not time travelling, its a buffered loop that the camera uses. Its not just me that's explained it, its a couple of sources on here and can be googled. Ask any BWV user and they will explain the same. Clever technology designed to capture incidents as they unfold.

The UK needs a complete overhaul - i agree, but i would argue that its a safeguarding problem that is tying our resources up, not woke things.

Have you got any suggestions to free up our time from safeguarding?

What else did they say?

Well, as you asked I believe it went a little along the lines of this:

• Crowd: A witch! A witch! A witch! We found a witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! We have found a witch. May we burn her?
• How do you know she is a witch
• She looks like one.
• Bring her forward.
• I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch !
• But you are dressed as one.
• They dressed me like this. - No, we didn't.
• And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
• Well? - We did do the nose.
• The nose? - And the hat. But she is a witch !
• Did you dress her up like this? - No, no!
• Yes. A bit.
• She has got a wart.
• What makes you think she's a witch?
• She turned me into a newt!
• A newt?
• I got better.
• Burn her anyway!
• Quiet! Quiet!
• There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
• Are there? What are they? Tell us. - Do they hurt?
• Tell me, what do you do with witches?
• Burn them!
• And what do you burn, apart from witches?
• More witches! - Wood!
• So why do witches burn?
• 'Cause they're made of wood? - Good!
• How do we tell if she is made of wood? - Build a bridge out of her.
• But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
• Oh, yeah.
• Does wood sink in water?
• No, it floats. - Throw her into the pond!
• What also floats in water?
• Bread. - Apples.
• Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy.
• Cherries. Mud. - Churches.
• Lead. - A duck!
• Exactly.
• So, logically--
• If she weighs the same as a duck...
• she's made of wood.
• And therefore?
• A witch!
• A duck! A duck! - Here's a duck.
• We shaIl use my largest scales.
• Burn the witch !
• Remove the supports!
• A witch!
• It's a fair cop.

That's factually not correct.

If a crime is recorded- it has to be investigated to close it .
So even if a crime was recorded- it can then be negated , it gets erased as it were . So it doesn't just sit there forever with a big ? Over it . It's closed with the code no crime has occurred. It's backwards I agree but this is apparently what the home office want .

If a crime is recorded- it has to be investigated to close it.

Also:

If I can give you an example please .
A man phoned 101 saying his ex , was harassing him and had threatened him with a knife . She was a nurse .
Had I simply taken his account and crimed it - she would have been suspended ok?

So her 'crime' would have been open forever?

Nice touch.

And how many here have Alexa or Google dot?

They are always listening too.

The difference is our body cam recording is erased unless the record button is pushed .

If you have Alexa- big brother is listening. At least if we hit record we're upfront with it .

As for the sticker stuff -
Yes they could read it . But to close the job (I code t not a. Rome because it wasn't a crime )
So to close the inc they'd have to just knock on , hi mrs doe
Sorry to bother you - is this the only sticker you have in any of your windows ? Can we just come in for 2 minutes and we'll explain why we're here .

So in they go . Have a chat . See there's no more stickers or anything untoward, explain what's happened, say sorry to bother you and leave .

That investagitive mind set means you have to see for yourself there's nothing else the pcso could have been referring to

We've knocked on doors because of some spurious before now and found drug dens , cannabis factories, and once even a bomb factory! Terrorist right in our midst and no one knew and no o E would have known if those
Officers hadn't asked to come in for 2 minutes.

You can't say we must Have an investigative mi d set when it suits and not at other times .

We have to check out these reports whether spurious or not .
Can you understand that ?

So, what I'm taking from this is, if the Police knock on your door, don't let them in. They might arrest you for something that has nothing to do with why they called, and they will be constantly watching for wrong think.

No of course the crime would have been investigated by the officer allocated to it and then negated after the fact and closed .
Crimes aren't allowed to be just left open . You have to close them with a code - and one of those is "no crime - cancel crime "

It was YOU that said you could have just 'crimed it' and she'd have been suspended.

Not me.

So either you have to investigate it or you can just 'crime it'.

If you honestly believe this then you must really think we have more time on our hands than we do.

The fact is when we knocked and found a bomb factory- had we just walked away at the front door and then say the big shopping centre was blown up or a bomb put on a bus - who would the public blame ?
It would be another police bashing exercise. They could have prevented that with a simple look around blah blah . We really have no way of winning and I'm only just coming to accept that after 14 years. It's definitely a damned if we do and a dammed if we don't.

If someone reported a child concern like baby p - if the mother does t let us in should we just leave it at that ? Or say we've had this report, we need to come in ?

What would you prefer . Genuine question.

It's a dubious way of entering without a warrant as far as I can see. And then recording what they see without any comeback or knowledge on this secret database they hold on people.

It has been very illuminating to say the least.

This is just a bit bonkers now .

Would you mind answering my question about say the bomb factory or the baby p scenario?

We can't get a warrant for every job - warrants have to go through court . If someone rings and says they have grave concerns for a
Child who is in danger do you think we should wait and get a warrant ?

I had a job only months ago where we took 5 desperately neglected children into police protection- one was almost dead .

Do you think the fact the mother didn't want to let us in should stop us going in to protect those children?
We entered on a s17 power of entry.
It's the absolute worst case of child neglect i have ever come across.

If we had walked away that night a 3 year old would be dead now .

It's very clear on this thread that we are held in deep suspicion and also very clear that no one here is actually understanding how crime recording and investigations work - that may be my fault for not explaining in layman's terms but what is being assumed here is mostly factually incorrect .

If you honestly believe this then you must really think we have more time on our hands than we do

3 people visited and spoke to one woman about a 4 word sticker.

It's what the whole thread is about.

The cops wrote the job off .

The pcso was wrong . I assume that it was the same pcso who went back . The cops would have been able to tell within 2 minutes there was no job to crime and leave . The fault here is with the pcso .

What comes across here is that the people on the thread here have never seen or experienced the murky world that is policing.

You are all talking about ideal world scenarios.

We do t live in that world . People lie to police . We can't just take things at face value . We can't just assume that the sticker being referred to is the one in the front t window. To investigate and rule out a crime involves simple
Talking to people. We can't investigate anything without speaking to the people involved whether is a truth or a fabrication.

The home office are insisting that if someone has bothered to pick up a phone and call us a crime MUST have been committed.

We as police officers know this is bollocks .

The home office on this because they say crime has been under recorded. So now it's gone bat shit crazy in the opposite direction. This bothers me immensely. Not just for women . For everyone.

It is quite simply putting the cart before the horse . We keep getting it rammed at us - if a victim says it's a crime , crime it

So if something is crimed , it's
Then investigated, and then if no crime has actually happened we can get the crime "removed " . Closed as crime recorded in error .

Why the home office want it this way is beyond me . Cops - boots on the ground cops - hate doing it this way . It feels wrong.

The bomb factory was discovered by chance. If I had a bomb factory or a dying toddler (I don't) and the Police rocked up because of a sticker. If I didn't let them in, what could they do about it without a warrant? Would you get a warrant for a sticker? If I left the Police on my doorstep or didn't even bother answering what could you do about it.

Presumably you had more to go on than just telling the Magistrate the homeowner was unwelcoming. Do we have to let you in? If we don't is that alone sufficient for a warrant or even for you to force entry?