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?

It's not for you to solve. It's a systemic problem. You are a small cog.

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?

If he wants a gun he will get a gun! The fact that he had wrong posters up doesn't save lives. You aren't going to stop him with your secret database are you, you aren't even there to put the pieces together you have already said you'll be sat at a hospital or care home when this all goes down.

Your own words show that the police aren't there doing their jobs. And yet you are relying on secret databases to solve it all for you.

And again, showing everyone that the original report is spot on.

If a significant amount of police time is spent doing safeguarding, why are you not reporting back to the Home Office that a seperate team needs to exist to do safeguarding leaving officers to do police work?

Here's a thought - PCSO's spend an inordinate amount of time spying on people, hows about they do some safeguarding for you?

The whole thing needs complete overhaul. As shown by your own words.

It doesn't matter if you've personally had the training or not. Your bosses will have, the Home Office has, the government has, the college of policing has, the Ministry of Justice has, the CPS has.

And it's not about whether one police force thinks they have not been indoctrinated. The fact is that women are being targeted and you are being used to do it.

You clearly have an issue with what you term safeguarding. I don't disagree that we have run out of resources. But the question was are the police being seen to be too woke. And the answer is yes.

The perception is yes.

And the answer is to counteract the Stonewall training, which has been deemed to be 'ahead of the law'. To be aware of where you are being used. Seeing the potential for crime in your day-to-day business, is not the same as being used to harass women who disagree with trans ideology.

And there are very, very many people who would absolutely disagree that you should make any note of what you think might become a potential crime. It's called freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought.

And the answer to your question is, there was nothing else in those sticker scenarios. The first woman was released without charge. Although they took a feminist book from her house, and some of the stickers. She was targeted by transactivists and the police were used to do it.

The second woman had a sticker in her window, that was, by her own admission, very very old. The two police officers agreed that it was completely legitimate. They need not have knocked on her door in the first place. They, like you, had no idea how women are being targeted for alleged transphobia. To them, this was just a nonsense bit of wasted time. To the woman, it was just more of the same frightening bias.

The person reporting the sticker would have used the word transphobia. It may mean nothing to you, but there are many forces, and police within them, who would see it neon lit as a potential crime, because they have been told it is.

The problem is that PCSO is not alone. There are many officers who either personally disagree with women's rights in connection to this, or have been trained to disagree.

You believing you're not one of them isn't relevant to the question in the op.

Hopefully the women on this thread have made you understand why there is this perception, certainly over this particular issue.

I'd be very wary of drawing a causal link between "has EDL posters up" and "is responsible for mass shooting" without any evidence of violent leanings. If there is evidence of violence, it's reasonable to monitor this person to some extent, but they still have privacy rights.

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.

What is an example of "stuff concerning being anti-trans people"? And why is it obligatory to agree with them (by which you mean the trans political agenda, I think)

I think it is having a sticker on your house saying 'trans activism erases lesbians'.

Or something about women's rights.

I think recording information that isn't a crime is not OK at all. How can people not see that it's the beginning of a slippery slope? Thought crimes aren't a thing yet as much as some people want them to be.

People are allowed to have any opinion they like, they can put offensive posters up on their wall, and they can do strange things with dolls. It's nothing to do with anyone else as far as I'm concerned. What they do, as long as it's not illegal, is no one else's business.

Mr Policeman here thinks it's ok to have some sort of secret database on people that no one is allowed to know about or challenge.
I bet he wouldn't say the same if someone reported him for racism, for example, with no proof and no conviction needed, which is then kept on file and consulted when he applies for a new job.
It's not OK for some random person to be able to get something recorded about you on their say-so with NO PROOF of anything, just a feeling that something is offensive.

It's scary how people can't see how it can be used against themselves, and not just the "baddies".

YY SantaCarla. Mr Policeman doesn't have the imagination to see how he too could fall foul of it.

I will say though I don't think that is just the fault of the police.

Intelligence gathering by it's very nature involves monitoring things that aren't crimes. So noting people who might have links to some cause or group, noting who they talk to and meet, noting their bank activity, etc.

And because that is clearly anti-democratic, most western democracies have had pretty clear rules about who can do this and hold this information with citizens, and under what circumstances. Not, for example, the military, and often even the police are restricted, domestic intelligence agencies may be where this kind of thing is done but the rules typically are strict.

This has somewhat eroded in the post-9/11 era. And I think also the expectations of the public with regards to prevention are different - prevention of all kinds, safety, medical, crime.

We have just spent two years where the public has expected the state to prevent the spread of a disease that spreads like a cold and they have accepted significant and in many places normally illegal restrictions on movement and gatherings and other things in order to try and accomplish this, while some citizens have help up countries like China or NZ as examples.

Which is to say that we now seem to live in a society that has far less respect for civil liberties as we've understood them in the past, and is willing to give the state extraordinary powers in order to feel safe, and I would argue has an intensified fear of contamination, including the contamination of thought. This has been building up for at least a decade.

A lot of this has come from the expectations of people, not just the state.

AlisonDonut
If he wants a gun he will get a gun! The fact that he had wrong posters up doesn't save lives. You aren't going to stop him with your secret database are you, you aren't even there to put the pieces together you have already said you'll be sat at a hospital or care home when this all goes down.

But his prospective employer will not have employed him based on the information given on his DBS check. So we lessen the risk. We lessen the risk by not allowing him a firearms licence.

I agree - if he has the mindset to kill someone, he would do it anyway regardless, but would society not ask the question as to why this person was granted his employment position and granted a gun based on the information police had discovered but were unable to disclose?

Or would society be happy that there was nothing police could do, as his opinions should not be recorded as it's nobody's business? Would the family of the deceased just accept this?

And you are right - we seldom get to any jobs like this anyway due to being sat at hospitals & care homes which is the point of the thread - being too woke to deal & solve crimes.

but by recording such information, if we do come across it - are we not helping to prevent crime? Is that not one of the original principles of policing by Robert Peel?

And we do report back that we are strapped due to safeguarding - what do the government do - tell us that 'this crying wolf has to stop' and cut loads of officers jobs. Now they are trying to patch it up by recruiting, but at present its not enough. Maybe in years to come the numbers will get back to somewhere near manageable but its not anywhere near enough at the moment.

PCSO's are employed to be out in the community - they have essentially taken over from foot beat officers. We sometimes do use them for hospital guards etc, but there are not enough of them to go around and there are safeguarding things they can't be used for as they do not have the same powers as police officers - powers of entry etc

Datun
So, to counteract this 'stonewall training' and to answer your point '...there was nothing else in those sticker scenarios.'

At what point does a call to police be ignored as not a police matter and binned?

If a call to police is just "There is a non offensive sticker on a window which expresses an non-offensive, non-criminal opinion which I happen to disagree with"

Yes - I agree, call taker should say "not a police matter" and put the phone down

But what if this caller lies in their initial report and says "There is a sticker in the widow which is abusive and offensive - the occupant also approaches passers by on the street and preaches to them and becomes abusive & threatening if they don't agree with her and they have offensive material in the house which they pass out to people on the street" "they only have the one sticker displayed at the moment, but they are constantly threatening people and i want some sort of action etc etc...." They lie basically to get a response.

And if the call taker asks questions, they continue to lie and make it sound horrendous.

Can we just write that off at source - or do you think that it needs further investigation?

Police officers are dispatched as a non-emergency job on the queue and establish that there is no foundation to the initial call and close the job after 10 minutes. PCSO was wrong to go back around, but we have said this previously

What if, what if....... police had gone around to speak to the reporting person and other residents came out and conformed what the reporting person said was correct. What if they said 'actually the person approached me and threatened me with violence if I didn't agree with her'. Unless we attend, we don't know if the initial call was correct.

That's why i am asking on here - what was on the original call to police by the reporting person. We can't make any judgments on how the police dealt with it unless we have the information. i don't know what it was but neither does anyone on here. And it won't be a Monty Python script.

And there are very, very many people who would absolutely disagree that you should make any note of what you think might become a potential crime. It's called freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought.
OK - so you would be happy for Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson to gain their employment positions?

You would be happy for your children to be in a class with Mr Smith or to be taken away on an overnight field trip with Mr Smith?

You would have no objections when you find out that police had attended his address and didn't disclose any information about his freedom of expressions?

The problem is that PCSO is not alone. There are many officers who either personally disagree with women's rights in connection to this, or have been trained to disagree.
We have not been trained to disagree. What training package covers this that we have done?

You will always have people in any employment who are corrupt and are anti-establishment to what ever their job is. But to say that the whole police force is following them or given training to follow them is not correct.

So, in this case i think we are all in agreement that the PCSO was wrong to go back around. If the initial call to police was binned off at source and the officers went around there anyway to dismiss her beliefs, then they are wrong. My point is, we do not know what the initial call was - so we cannot judge.

Ereshkigalangcleg
I'd be very wary of drawing a causal link between "has EDL posters up" and "is responsible for mass shooting" without any evidence of violent leanings. If there is evidence of violence, it's reasonable to monitor this person to some extent, but they still have privacy rights.

So you would be happy to 'monitor' Mr Smith as he enjoys 'rape' scenarios - rape being a crime of violence?

And how do you want the police to 'monitor' him?

And would you like a prospective employer to have access to that 'monitored' information?

Same with Mr Thompson - He has stuff on his wall, so posters which display a hatred towards trans-people - more than just one sticker. Do we 'monitor' Mr Thompson too?

SantaCarlaCalifornia
I think recording information that isn't a crime is not OK at all. How can people not see that it's the beginning of a slippery slope? Thought crimes aren't a thing yet as much as some people want them to be.
Again - you would not record any information on Mr Smith, Mr Jones or Mr Thompson? And be happy for them to gain their employment?

You would be happy for you children to be in a class with Mr Smith or to be taken away on an overnight field trip with Mr Smith?

You would have no objections when you find out that police had attended his address and didn't disclose any information about his freedom of expressions? And you have proof - its been observed by police at his address and they have expressed what they do.

So how do you find out who is an accredited stonewall fully paid up member of the thought police ?

The home office is a long long long way up our food chain and you already (criticised) pointed out that things like high court judicial rulings dont filter down to the grass roots . Stonewall training hasn't either . Now I agree that stonewall and trans rights activists are using phrases like hate speech etc .
But this ethos around hate incidents and hate crimes isn't just about women , vs men vs trans vs gay women etc etc .

The home office have given mixed signals .
If a victim says it's a crime , crime it .
If someone is offended they now expect it to tagged as a hate incident. It's all a bag of mashings . But the home office need to come clean . They sit quietly saying and doing nothing while letting police forces take the flak .

I've certainly never had stonewall training but I have had (and Felix will know these ) an NCALT on all perceived hate crime and incidents. It's not exclusive. Everyone is discriminated against. Not just women .
The resounding message from that crappy ncalt (which is basically an online tutorial usually on teaching granny to suck eggs )
Basically the ncalt said if someone feels targeted due to race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation blah blah blah it's a hate incident.

It's not a conspiracy against women . It's across the board . Anyone can be accused. Which is blatantly wrong. Anyone whose been a pc for a while knows it's bollocks . So how does one challenge that carte Blanche approach.

If everyone is discriminated against is it discrimination????

The woke thing is a smoke screen . It's not being woke that stops us investigating crime . It's lack of funding, resources, cars, laptops, computers , it's trying to stretch a few cops out to encompass an ever increasing workload where no one has time to do anything properly.

I've gone 10 hours without a piss before now . Left on a scene , middle of November, outside , no access to a loo , on my period to boot , no cop available to come take over to let me have a wee .
Drove home on a carrier bag . Staff welfare is non existent. Prisoners get better treated- they have food and drinks and access to a toilet .

There's a bigger picture here and we all know it's gonna go wrong eventually. I'm absolutely dying for more Harry's to come out and ask the pertinent questions. The home office is basically directing police forces to sleepwalk into a whole world of pain and when that wheel does come off - I bet the home office and Home Secretary deny deny deny . They'll sit and let individuals take the flak .

Bloke today holding up a blank piece of paper, questioned by the police because he might write something on it that someone might find offensive.

Again - you would not record any information on Mr Smith, Mr Jones or Mr Thompson? And be happy for them to gain their employment?

So you are confirming that people with opinions are not allowed to have jobs?

This gets better and better.

Same with Mr Thompson - He has stuff on his wall, so posters which display a hatred towards trans-people - more than just one sticker.

2 stickers?

Sorry that's a name change fail . Guess who .

Im me again now .

So how do you find out who is an accredited stonewall fully paid up member of the thought police

Many have paid for the diversity champions membership and The Home Office are, so you are...by default.

I specifically said that it isn't reasonable to assume Mr Jones is violent without specific evidence of violence or violent ideation.

Mr Smith is an admitted paedophile.

Same with Mr Thompson - He has stuff on his wall, so posters which display a hatred towards trans-people - more than just one sticker. Do we 'monitor' Mr Thompson too?

I asked you to define what constitutes "hatred of trans people", and I see you have not. "Kill trans people" = hatred and possible violent ideation or incitement of others. "Trans ideology erases women" a perfectly legitimate opinion. "Woman= adult human female" biological reality.

Battery Life: 12hrs

Camera Storage: up to 70hrs

Body cam is stored up to maximum of 31days for non-incidents.

They can confirm they have recordings but refuse to provide it stating they are exempt by virtue of Section 30 (1) (a) (b) Investigation and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities and Section 40 (2) Personal Information, and lots of other sections of various acts.
(I’ve seen official proof of this where the confirmed they have recordings and how much (in this case it was over hr long) but obviously felt in that case it was going to be used in bad faith – publicly.

There was huge cost in research, which was done in different phases, two Police Authorities took part in this. It is also huge cost buying them, maintenance and IT required. The is some cost savings in that malicious complaints can be proven, time & cost in court with evidence, saving writes ups & useful esp. during attending fatal accidents. Also, evidence for victims or public with legit complaints against police. People when being filmed it can't deterrent from abuse & violence. So, it far from irrelevant or pedantic.

Equipment is part of uniform required for the job you are employed for and for which you are responsible for, including you have right equipment, it works, reporting any damaged, defective, or misplaced items. You also know reasons why you might need something like a torch and should understand how everything works.

If Paramedic or Firefighter was on thread saying it’s funny, don’t think to ask, or understand how equipment works or check all in good working order, would it be acceptable? I also would question what other areas on job someone would lack initiative and not bothered about. Police are on same level as the other two emergency services.

I’ve seen nurses quit and apologies to patients for no longer being able to work in environment that putting patient care at risk that puts onus on them.
Its last resort that maybe gets management to sit up and listen and make changes for staff left and those new. Putting the onus oh we not had training etc is bs!

I’ve removed other details to clear up all these questions about what, when & how PCSO reported, because hate drips and drabs and prefer to give full detail account. But have added to my still on going complaint photos of various angels of my door and from area she was referring to as reason to knock at my house ‘as apparently, I have good view). Beginning of conversation before sticker didn’t think relevant except for this yellow letter, but mentions about lots of other people told her about drugs in our close (we have open playing field about 200yards from my home) and large parking space that used by those who play football, walk dogs and other actives.
My house is not the nearest and all these other people's yet knock only on my door to ask me.

She also mentions about seeing (word she uses can't catch properly) but basically to do with drugs, basically she been in my close heck of lot, yet said only seeing my sticker cos standing there (again she not notices it before – it been there since Dec 2021) She see it when dropping neighbourhood letter to everyone! She is paid who been in job long time PCSO, I had no clue who she was until after looked up id no. She gave me and found she same one on yellow letter also same pcso that reported it.

There are two adults registered at this address (my other child is minor), none of officers asked for name and had my eldest answered the door they would of spoke to her. This is why requested information held on my name or that which refers to my address.

It is up to the chief commissioner is this be marked as non-incident as non-incidents do flag up on enhanced DBS check.

The fact remains it was pcso reported who should know that this would be classed as malicious and not even worthy of speaking to me and wouldn’t have been had it been joe public. So, it's questionable to what it reported as.

Only one thing that offends me and that is someone appropriating my very being, and that is I’m a woman. Which brings me to, I have been struggling since Thu (something else happened) and it just further triggers pandora box opening, so I only had in total about 8hrs sleep since then.

I regret posting my tweets along with what said with them as constantly in my face, stuff don’t want to deal with just yet until ready.
That’s why distraction works, usually I just plod along giving it no thought after pop to shop sighing when the miserable git in or chatting to lovely woman, but I came away overthinking, as they didn’t see me who they heard on clips or what they know, they see me – the customer, who think doesn’t have world on her shoulders or is falling apart on inside.

I blame myself for putting myself in position I vowed never would happened again whereas someone would contribute to bad place mentally am in but also angry this wouldn’t have happened had they not abused their position.

Am going to remove myself and just go back to be a reader here.
At the beginning I avoid places on internet as couldn’t face any negative comments or criticism at the time.
I did eventually as want people's perception also took onboard any criticism the arses it water of ducks back.
The lib who tweeted, just wanted to know I see her! It was replies to her that meant more to me. Ended up blocking because irony of their tweets, also to care about likes is rather pathetic given the position they hold.

One thing is that have found it frustrating, for example is point about the DBS which has been pointed out by women here who are in fact correct but somehow been undermined because of posters who haven’t felt need to state their job profession, yet felt they dismissed by those who stated they are/do work for Police, not just once but many times.
To me this again is someone using their position like some kind of power, and its suckers like me that still respect and trust they know what they talking about.

If your job is conflicting with what ever going on within your own family especially grown arse adult one, then perhaps job ain't for you. So yes this was personal grievance the Pcso had.

stillvicarinatutu · Today 03:25
(Wasn't today but this how long kept rewriting my reply)

“This was - used to be - my area of expertise. I worked with rape crisis"

You implied.
Am not sure what expertise you meant now, as I assumed this meant you properly trained and qualified with credentials and wondered why you didn't notice that PCSO is not qualified nor should not be discussing stuff with d.v, sexual assaults, rape victims etc without a Police Officer present.

Lastly with regards to FOI, they have been done for example West Yorkshire Police stonewall one year they paid £5,250 in house role models (whatever that is) + £2.500 yr. membership.

To all you wonderful Mumsnetters who’s pearls of wisdom have taught me so much, some have been life changing like the word No, which had domino effect in way taught my daughter.

But his prospective employer will not have employed him based on the information given on his DBS check.

Why is it relevant to include anything about his membership of EDL?

So you would be happy to 'monitor' Mr Smith as he enjoys 'rape' scenarios - rape being a crime of violence?

Plenty of perfectly ordinary men "enjoy rape scenarios". It's called porn. As I've said and we've discussed, the police aren't proposing to do anything about that, are they?

mumsnetters

I'm so sorry we have to keep using your situation lovely. But it is so utterly bonkers it just shows the insanity up to the world. Thank goodness you recorded it.

<big hugs>

Doris

Hello founddoris very nice to meet you . I'll answer a couple of your points if I may by highlighting my comments under yours :

Battery Life: 12hrs

Camera Storage: up to 70hrs

Body cam is stored up to maximum of 31days for non-incidents.

They can confirm they have recordings but refuse to provide it stating they are exempt by virtue of Section 30 (1) (a) (b) Investigation and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities and Section 40 (2) Personal Information, and lots of other sections of various acts.
(I’ve seen official proof of this where the confirmed they have recordings and how much (in this case it was over hr long) but obviously felt in that case it was going to be used in bad faith – publicly.

There was huge cost in research, which was done in different phases, two Police Authorities took part in this. It is also huge cost buying them, maintenance and IT required. The is some cost savings in that malicious complaints can be proven, time & cost in court with evidence, saving writes ups & useful esp. during attending fatal accidents. Also, evidence for victims or public with legit complaints against police. People when being filmed it can't deterrent from abuse & violence. So, it far from irrelevant or pedantic.

you won't ever get access to the recordings but if they exist then you will have more grist to the mill in your complaint because the senior officers and PSD will review and watch them *

Equipment is part of uniform required for the job you are employed for and for which you are responsible for, including you have right equipment, it works, reporting any damaged, defective, or misplaced items. You also know reasons why you might need something like a torch and should understand how everything works.

If Paramedic or Firefighter was on thread saying it’s funny, don’t think to ask, or understand how equipment works or check all in good working order, would it be acceptable? I also would question what other areas on job someone would lack initiative and not bothered about. Police are on same level as the other two emergency services.

I have always checked my equipment is working- my life could depend on it - I just do not know the exact technology- but then I do t suppose everyone who uses a lap top or a checkout knows exactly how it works ? It has also been a while since I've worn body worn video . Not an excuse - but it's pretty irrelevant whether I knew exactly how it worked - just that I knew how to work it .

I’ve seen nurses quit and apologies to patients for no longer being able to work in environment that putting patient care at risk that puts onus on them.
Its last resort that maybe gets management to sit up and listen and make changes for staff left and those new. Putting the onus oh we not had training etc is bs!

I am a single woman with rent and bills - I am not in such a privileged position as to be able to leave work on a principal being discussed on mn . Unfortunately. Because if I were - I would have left by now . I wouldn't qualify for benefits and would not get another job at my age with the same pay . So while the fantasy would be lovely - I've worked hard and I earn the money I need. I doubt anyone has ever resigned on a point of principle only to find themselves living in their car .

I’ve removed other details to clear up all these questions about what, when & how PCSO reported, because hate drips and drabs and prefer to give full detail account. But have added to my still on going complaint photos of various angels of my door and from area she was referring to as reason to knock at my house ‘as apparently, I have good view). Beginning of conversation before sticker didn’t think relevant except for this yellow letter, but mentions about lots of other people told her about drugs in our close (we have open playing field about 200yards from my home) and large parking space that used by those who play football, walk dogs and other actives.
My house is not the nearest and all these other people's yet knock only on my door to ask me.

She also mentions about seeing (word she uses can't catch properly) but basically to do with drugs, basically she been in my close heck of lot, yet said only seeing my sticker cos standing there (again she not notices it before – it been there since Dec 2021) She see it when dropping neighbourhood letter to everyone! She is paid who been in job long time PCSO, I had no clue who she was until after looked up id no. She gave me and found she same one on yellow letter also same pcso that reported it.

There are two adults registered at this address (my other child is minor), none of officers asked for name and had my eldest answered the door they would of spoke to her. This is why requested information held on my name or that which refers to my address.

It is up to the chief commissioner is this be marked as non-incident as non-incidents do flag up on enhanced DBS check.

The fact remains it was pcso reported who should know that this would be classed as malicious and not even worthy of speaking to me and wouldn’t have been had it been joe public. So, it's questionable to what it reported as.

yea it is .and I don't t think you'll find a single police officer here or anywhere that does not think that PCSO was out of order .

Only one thing that offends me and that is someone appropriating my very being, and that is I’m a woman. Which brings me to, I have been struggling since Thu (something else happened) and it just further triggers pandora box opening, so I only had in total about 8hrs sleep since then.

I regret posting my tweets along with what said with them as constantly in my face, stuff don’t want to deal with just yet until ready.
That’s why distraction works, usually I just plod along giving it no thought after pop to shop sighing when the miserable git in or chatting to lovely woman, but I came away overthinking, as they didn’t see me who they heard on clips or what they know, they see me – the customer, who think doesn’t have world on her shoulders or is falling apart on inside.

I blame myself for putting myself in position I vowed never would happened again whereas someone would contribute to bad place mentally am in but also angry this wouldn’t have happened had they not abused their position.

Am going to remove myself and just go back to be a reader here.
At the beginning I avoid places on internet as couldn’t face any negative comments or criticism at the time.
I did eventually as want people's perception also took onboard any criticism the arses it water of ducks back.
The lib who tweeted, just wanted to know I see her! It was replies to her that meant more to me. Ended up blocking because irony of their tweets, also to care about likes is rather pathetic given the position they hold.

One thing is that have found it frustrating, for example is point about the DBS which has been pointed out by women here who are in fact correct but somehow been undermined because of posters who haven’t felt need to state their job profession, yet felt they dismissed by those who stated they are/do work for Police, not just once but many times.
I haven't dismissed anyone . If you read my last post you will see I've said this process discriminates against everyone
To me this again is someone using their position like some kind of power, and its suckers like me that still respect and trust they know what they talking about.

If your job is conflicting with what ever going on within your own family especially grown arse adult one, then perhaps job ain't for you. So yes this was personal grievance the Pcso had.

stillvicarinatutu · Today 03:25
(Wasn't today but this how long kept rewriting my reply)

“This was - used to be - my area of expertise. I worked with rape crisis"

You implied.
Am not sure what expertise you meant now, as I assumed this meant you properly trained and qualified with credentials and wondered why you didn't notice that PCSO is not qualified nor should not be discussing stuff with d.v, sexual assaults, rape victims etc without a Police Officer present.

I don't know what you refer to here as I have not listened to the entire Twitter feed - I'd heard enough to know she was wrong after the first 3 sound bites you tweeted. I have no knowledge of the rest of the conversation

Lastly with regards to FOI, they have been done for example West Yorkshire Police stonewall one year they paid £5,250 in house role models (whatever that is) + £2.500 yr. membership.

West Yorkshire need taking to task in that case - I've heard humberside made ridiculous calls to people tweeting facts . In my force - I see no evidence at all of any of this training or affiliation.

To all you wonderful Mumsnetters who’s pearls of wisdom have taught me so much, some have been life changing like the word No, which had domino effect in way taught my daughter.

*this thread has made me think , and has been illuminating. I'm truly sorry this happened to you and there is no excuse. . It was wrong . I hope you get a resolution. Good luck with it .

From Sex Matters list of current or former Stonewall Diversity Champions, based on a 2021 list)

Emergency services
Avon and Somerset Police
Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service
Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service
Cheshire Fire & Rescue Service
Cheshire Police
City of London Police
Civil Nuclear Constabulary
Cleveland Fire Brigade
County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service
Derbyshire Constabulary
Derbyshire Fire & Rescue Service
Dorset Police
Durham Constabulary
Dyfed-Powys Police
East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service
Essex County Fire and Rescue Service
Greater Manchester Combined Authority
Hampshire Constabulary
Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service
Hertfordshire Constabulary
Humberside Police Response to FOI request
Kent Fire and Rescue Service
Lancashire Constabulary
Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service
Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service
Leicestershire Police
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority
Merseyside Police
Metropolitan Police Service
North Wales Police
Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service
Northumbria Police
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service
Nottinghamshire Police
Police Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service
Staffordshire Police
Suffolk Constabulary
Surrey Police
Sussex Police
Tyne & Wear Fire and Rescue Service
Welsh Ambulance Service
West Midlands Fire Service
West Midlands Police
West Yorkshire Police
Wiltshire Police
sex-matters.org/stonewall-champions-list/

My force isn't on that list thank god .

When I said I hadn't had this training- I wasn't lying !!!

AlisonDonut
So you are confirming that people with opinions are not allowed to have jobs?
This gets better and better.

No, people with opinions can have jobs - but it depends on what those 'opinions' are?

Would be happy for Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson to gain their employment positions?

You would be happy for your children to be in a class with Mr Smith or to be taken away on an overnight field trip with Mr Smith?

You would have no objections when you find out that police had attended his address and didn't disclose any information about his freedom of expressions?

If Mr Thompson took his position and then killed a trans person in his care/supervision.

Would society not ask the question as to why this person was granted his employment position and granted a gun based on the information police had discovered but were unable to disclose?

Or would society be happy that there was nothing police could do, as his opinions should not be recorded as it's nobody's business?

Would the family of the deceased just accept this? Or would they ask 'what could have been done to prevent the loss of our loved one?'

And would you support the police if his 'opinions' were not recorded