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?

The point is there was no time to speak to a magistrate or judge to get a warrant . It was life or death . The woman who phoned us had chances upon this household. They were known to social services but had refused them entry . We have other powers we can enter a property with . In that case we used section 17 power of entry there and then and we arrested two adults , saved the life of one 3 year old and took 5 children into police protection.

You talk about magistrates- this is why we aren't getting very far . You don't understand how any of this works .

I can relate . When I was living a normal life in a normal world where I had no idea what people are capable of doing , where I'd never dealt with bad people or even come across them, where I'd never walked into a house with dog shit all over the floor , with babies with maggots in nappies , with parents who can afford to smoke and drink but won't feed their children, houses with no carpets , bin bags up at the windows , houses where the smell literally permeates your clothes , houses with drugs , houses with stolen goods in them , houses being used for drug dens , special needs people being hounded by scrotes who take their money for drugs and use their flats to do
So , and steal their washing machine to buy more drugs , before - when I probably lived thinking exactly the same as you - police made me nervous, I read the news - all the bad press , my husband (ex) was very anti establishment and it broke us up after 25 years of marriage. It's really easy to sit at home in a nice house , with nice things , and nice jobs , with nice friends and family - and with little or no understanding of the law , of crime recording mandates , or of the type of people we deal with most often . This pcso has set us back so much . Yet again it's "the police" . Well in this case it was one very ignorant, very rude, very unlawful pcso .

I'm not trying to patronise - I'm trying to honestly tell you what it's like, why we need to be able to simply talk to people, the things we discover by accident that are really serious- like the bomb factory, - we can't do our job as we ought to be doing if we aren't allowed to simply talk to people and ask questions. The moment those
Cops walked away that Gould have been the end of that whole job .

Sorry that last bit makes no sense

The moment the cops walked away from Bella does house that should have been it . End of job .

Right so you were called out to a specific serious incident with an ongoing criminal situation. Well done (I'm sorry this does sound patronising). You weren't called out to a trivial incident and happen across a life or death situation.

I suspect the latter situation can happen but rarely does. If it does and you 'miss' in, then, unfairly in my opinion, your name will be mud.

But we're talking about two completely different scenarios.

I understand the Police don't always require warrants, I think you would need to justify forcing entry into someone's house if all you had to go on was a sticker and no offer of a cup of tea.

Nobody minds you simply talking to people.

Secret files, accessing houses to snoop, 3 people visiting a woman for a sticker. This is more than talking to people.

And you wonder why people don't trust you?

As someone who has acted up I'm going bet my bottom dollar that the two cops will have been going on something like an arrest attempt (that's the only time you're double crewed) and I bet the Sgt has said "lads - on your way just swing by this address and see if there's anything to this one - reported a sticker!? Just knock on them we can close it "

Cops go on route to other job . See there's nothing in it . Leave .

They won't have sent 2 cops to assess a sticker - they'll have been going to something else .

They've had a quick chat , the closed the incident down-nothing to crime . Closed .

Pcso eejit has taken upon herself to go lecturing the ooor woman .

I'd be interested to see the outcome.

Oh and Sgt will have said "it's a nowt job - it'll be a really quick one "

Poor buggers won't have expected this !

I'd personally like to slap that pcso silly, this is just playing into the medias hands and making people perceive this to be a bigger problem. The bbc reports the public perception is we're too wile blah blah . They should come work with us for a week. They'd soon change their mind .
I'm not very "woke" at all - I'll keep my opinions to myself but I have them .

AlisonDonut
Ah - I see you have just quoted a script from Monty Python

I take it you can't answer the questions i asked you
i thought this was a serious conversation and debate

3 people visited and spoke to one woman about a 4 word sticker. - this is the point - what was actually reported. You can't judge the response until we know what was actually reported - I take it you don't know. So how on earth can we judge what the police officers did was right or wrong? The PCSO was wrong for going back, I'm not disputing this - but how can you say that the police should have just walked away at the sight of the sticker?

In the scenarios I posted - 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?

Secret files, accessing houses to snoop, 3 people visiting a woman for a sticker. This is more than talking to people. - so what do we do with the information we have found from these visits with Mr Smith, Mr Jones and Mr Thompson?

IcakethereforeIam
Where have we said that you should be arrested for something that isn't an offence. And before you say that "she was arrested for stickers" - there is no such offence, so she would have been arrested for a specific offence.

If you don't want to open the door to us and we have no power to enter - that's fine, keep it closed.

But if the occupant does open the door and invites the police in like Mr Smith, Mr Jones and Mr Thompson did - should the officers just ignore what they saw? Or should we record it somewhere?

My argument is that its safeguarding problems that is tying our resources up, not woke things. This is what is preventing us from investigating & solving crimes.

I think that seems extremely plausible. I hope the PCSO is on administrative leave (or whatever the terminology is). I'm glad there is a formal complaint, I'm sorry for the two officers who have been caught up in this. Whoever originally dispatched them should be having a good think, depending on the plausibility of the original complaint. Who ever started this whole shitshow, I hope there are repercussions for them.

I quoted Monty Python because this is how you are behaving.

In response to 'what else was reported'.

This conversation is completely ridiculous, and you can't even see it.

Just don't let them in people. If you have done something worth talking about, let them arrest you and get yourselves legal representation.

If not then shut the door.

And hope that one day the police force is overhauled and starts doing what it should do. Protect and serve, not spy and keep secret records.

As mentioned by the judge in the Miller case, the police shouldn't behave like the Stazi, which as evidenced here, they are.

Alison

I understand your deep mistrust, but the police have to walk a very fine line between protecting the public (people like you and all on the thread) and not .

People are very quick to criticise off the police fall off that line either way .

If we missed an opportunity to prevent something- (my bomb factory example ?) we would be slated when the bus blows up and be subjected to enquiry into how it wasn't acted on it was missed.

If we are nosey and curious enough to make doubly sure there is nothing more to a spurious report of a sticker - we are criticised and subjected to mass public condemnation.

This is a thankless job mostly . And I see common sense going out the window.
But the way these things are recorded, documented , closed or not - is solely down to the home office - they dictate to the police how we do things . We dont get a choice in that . More and more I see our discretion eroded with new rules , if I'm honest I can't wait to retire .

For most law abiding people they'll rarely speak to us unless it's door to door or enquiries. In this case the incident was closed and the cops left .

Does the nation really believe that these terrible misjudged, I'll informed shining examples of getting it wrong are the norm ?

How many calls do you think eqch force gets per day ?

How many Incidents do you think get passed to police to look at each day ?

How often , in % terms are these kind of fuck ups happening in comparison to the number of jobs passed to us ? I'd be really interested to know that.

In this case the incident was closed and the cops left

Good god.

I'm going to leave it there. As I'm done with the gaslighting.

Well it was . It was the wrongful actions of the pcso who went back .

On the one hand you're saying we should not crime anything from the incident and take it on face value

On the other you're saying that going to talk to the subject of the complaint is also unacceptable.

So answer me this . What would you want us to do .?

Crime it and not speak to the person?

Or speak to them, ascertain no crime has been committed and bin the job without anything further .

We can't do both . Which would you like to see happen ?

And yes I know the pcso still took it on themselves to go back - but the actual warranted police constables - did not record a crime and did not deem a crime had taken place .

The pcso here is very wrong . But she has acted on her own - not at the behest of the officers. If the actual warranted police constables had thought there was a. Case to answer they would have crimed it and investigated it themselves. They did the right thing .
The pcso made an ass of the law and us in this instance . If I were the co stable who had had this done to me by a pcso I'd be bloody livid .

This case was very bad .

What should have happened and what did happen are two different things.

I fully agree that if things like this happen - they need to be stood up to , called out , and complained about .

I can only speak my my experiences however- and while I am not denying this happens - you've linked me to cases of terrible conduct- but all I can say is from my personal experience these type of cock ups are not the norm .

Where this happens it needs dealing with . Same as any wrong doing within the police service, it shouldn't be tolerated.

I think some of my attempts to explain the procedures we are directed to follow (home office directives) are being taken as excuses .

I promise you I am not excusing bad practice. There is no excuse for what happened here .

I think what ultimately upsets people is an increasing sense that their political and social opinions are being policed, by people in the culture, in their jobs, and even now potentially by police forces which are wearing symbols and marching in parades with the people responsible for the policing.

It's incidents like these, the kinds of Twitter stuff police forces are seeing, the court cases, and all the rest.

There is the sense that it's now considered a potential hate crime to disagree with certain social ideas even if you don't do anything beyond expressing them.

The police, the civil service, schools, the courts, hospitals, are all supposed to be apolitical, and increasingly they don't seem to be.

I get that . And I agree . Police should do the job we're paid to do , with impartiality and neutrality.

No affiliation to any groups at all .

I do wonder how many of the 44 forces in England and Wales are actually doing this - it seems that both my force and Felix force aren't . We can't be the only two ?

My biggest concern here is that Non Crime Hate Incidents appear to be extrajudicial punishments in practice. Someone makes a baseless accusation against another, and a few years later that person is refused a job because of something on their criminal record which they were unaware of. They aren't told about it, and there's no opportunity to appeal.

For many minor crimes, there are options available to the police such as cautions and FPNs which keep matters out of the courts. However they can only be used with the cooperation of the suspect, who otherwise has the opportunity to fight their case in court. It's much like an out of court settlement in a civil case. NCHIs seem positively Orwellian.

I've no objection to the police collecting intelligence. It's an important part of crime prevention. However I do object to that intel being passed on to external organisations (such as through DBS) when the person hasn't had the chance to challenge the allegations against them. Innocent until proven guilty etc.

It seems to me that all the powers the police have been given to try and prevent crimes from happening, which is all very laudable, are being exploited in order to harass women, under the non crime of 'transphobia' .

Whether officers have themselves been on stonewall training, isn't necessarily relevant, as their bosses will have been. The entire force has been rainbow washed

And yes, that's why a town covered in stickers was ignored, but a woman living in it who posted a sticker objecting to trans ideology wasn't.

The same with the ribbons, the same with the sticker in a window.

And the same for women like Posie Parker, who was threatened with arrest for using the word castration. Not because it was factually incorrect, but because it was used regarding the actions of the head of mermaids towards her (then) son and who felt it implied a connection to sex offending as it was a term also used for sex offenders.

Just to be clear, Posie Parker got a police visit, from two officers in an entirely different county, who had to therefore stay the night in her town because they had travelled so far, in order to take her in for an interview for using the word castration correctly.

The problem, on this thread, is that the women on it who are at the cutting edge of all this, are seeing this scenario played out over and over.

They know that the police are being used. The police on this thread are not equipped with this information and are justifying the actions of their colleagues on a case-by-case basis.

You have to see this being played out in every force, in every county, only towards women (mostly) who object to trans ideology, to understand what's happening.

That the police then parade around in rainbowed cars and lanyards, is just adding insult to injury. Or, rather, justification of their own exploitation, that they can't even see.

You DO have an affiliation.

As already explained - the Home Office is a Stonewall champion and fully signed up.

With all due respect how would you know if your force is a Stonewall Champion, when you didn't even know the Protected Characteristics or who determines what they are?

I think people have made it clear that sending two officers and a PCSO round for a 4 word sticker, versus 'crime it' for potential knife crime are signs that you have lost all proportionality.

And to repeat - yes, you really should investigated potential knife crime.

No, it's probably not best use of police time to send 2 officers and a PCSO out to look at and harangue a woman for a sticker.

People feel sorry for you on this thread because you have given advice to women in the past, but all I can see is evidence that the force is completely unable to see what it is there for.

And yes, what Mr Smith, Jones or whoever have in their house, posters, artifacts, whatever is none of your business if it is breaking no laws and they in turn break no laws themselves.

AlisonDonut
And yes, what Mr Smith, Jones or whoever have in their house, posters, artifacts, whatever is none of your business if it is breaking no laws and they in turn break no laws themselves.
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?

I think people have made it clear that sending two officers and a PCSO round for a 4 word sticker
You're not listening to a word I am saying here - 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. Why is this ridiculous?

Do you know what was originally reported?

And to repeat - yes, you really should investigated potential knife crime.
I completely agree, but we can't get there due to the amount of safeguarding we have to do. This is where the real problems lie with availability of police to go to crimes and investigate them.

So what would you do to free up resources from the amount of safeguarding?

The problem, on this thread, is that the women on it who are at the cutting edge of all this, are seeing this scenario played out over and over.

They know that the police are being used. The police on this thread are not equipped with this information and are justifying the actions of their colleagues on a case-by-case basis.

You have to see this being played out in every force, in every county, only towards women (mostly) who object to trans ideology, to understand what's happening.

That the police then parade around in rainbowed cars and lanyards, is just adding insult to injury. Or, rather, justification of their own exploitation, that they can't even see.

Exactly. I think this thread makes it clear how much they can't see it, Datun.

DdraigGoch
Someone makes a baseless accusation against another, and a few years later that person is refused a job because of something on their criminal record which they were unaware of.

If its a non-crime incident, then they will not get a criminal record. Its non-crime.

Cautions & FPNs still appear on DBS & enhanced DBS checks. When you accept a caution, you sign to say that this is the case and its recorded. They can take it to court if they wish, but if they are found guilty its highly unlikely that the punishment/adjudication will be a caution.

If you have no objections to them collecting intelligence - would you be happy with police recording the information they have learned by vising Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson?

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.

Or do we have to ask them first before the information is recorded?
And if so, would this be the same for all intelligence gathered on people?

Datun
They know that the police are being used. The police on this thread are not equipped with this information and are justifying the actions of their colleagues on a case-by-case basis.

I have not had any stonewall training, no rainbow cars or rainbow lanyards - no lanyards full stop - so our force must be doing things right then - the same as our neighbouring forces.

And the police officers on this thread have said, repeatedly, that the actions by the PCSO was wrong.

The issues police have at the moment is that our resources are repeatedly wiped out with safeguarding issues - not woke issues or stonewall issues. This is why we cannot get to crimes in order to solve them. Our emergency response shift is repeatedly wiped out time & time again by safeguarding vulnerable people, or finding missing kids from care homes, or waiting for hours in a custody queue, or cell watching etc etc. This is where the problems lie - not woke issues or stonewall issues.

What would be your solution to this?

Ereshkigalangcleg
So how am i being used then?

I have said, a number of times the issues police have at the moment is that our resources are repeatedly wiped out with safeguarding issues - not woke issues or stonewall issues. This is why we cannot get to crimes in order to solve them.

What would be your solution to this?