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?

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

Do you have a list? I'm sure not every police officer is as intelligent, thoughtful and proportionate as you are, so there needs to be one.

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?

What is the level of "hate" we are talking about that makes it a fair assumption that he might snap and murder trans people at any time (despite zero having been murdered in the last three years and of the very few that have in the last decade, mostly not because of "transphobia" so not "hate crime"?

Ereshkigalangcleg
Mr Smith isn't a paedophile - he has sex with dolls, there's no offences
Mr Jones isn't violent - no offences have been committed
Mr Thompson isn't violent - no offences have been committed

So would you be happy with them all having their respective jobs?

I asked you to define what constitutes "hatred of trans people" - his posters say 'death to all trans people' - his opinion, his views, no criminal offences - do we record this somewhere?

Trans ideology erases women" a perfectly legitimate opinion - i agree
But who has the decision of what to record and what not to record?
Do we have a blanket - "don't record any opinion"
Or 'Record everything' and let a prospective employer (or who ever requires the info) decide if its relevant?
Or do we take each incident on a case-by-case basis?

But his prospective employer will not have employed him based on the information given on his DBS check. - Exactly. So Mr Smith would not be given the position at the school. Would you say that decision was right or wrong?

So for each scenario you would say that nothing should be recorded anywhere. So nothing will come back on any DBS or similar check?

If no law has been broken then why should someone be criminalised for it? Particularly in a way that has no checks and balances.

If you think that Mr Smith's activities ought to be a crime, then you should lobby for the law to be changed. People should not be penalised for not breaking the law.

Ereshkigalangcleg
What is the level of "hate" we are talking about that makes it a fair assumption that he might snap and murder trans people at any time (despite zero having been murdered in the last three years and of the very few that have in the last decade, mostly not because of "transphobia" so not "hate crime"?

Who knows what the level of hate is - thats the point

As it stands, we have a grieving family who are asking questions as to why the police did not disclose this information that could have prevented the death of their loved one.

Or would you support the police if they say that there was nothing they could do - as they can not record peoples opinions?

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

But it gets disclosed to employers so you are being punished for something that is not a crime.

DdraigGoch
If no law has been broken then why should someone be criminalised for it?

They are not being criminalised - there is no crime - just their opinions.

They are having information on them recorded which an employer may use to gauge if that person is appropriate for the job

As it stands Mr Smith has not broken any law
Are you happy for your children to be taught by Mr Smith and to have Mr Smith take them on an overnight field trip?

his posters say 'death to all trans people

Yes, that's indicating that he believes it's ok to be violent to trans people. It's in no way the same as a woman having a sticker saying that trans ideology erases women. The police could try to do that when they come across similar threats by men to "terfs" perhaps? Ie men threatening violence to women they don't approve of. But they don't.

Mr Smith isn't a paedophile - he has sex with dolls

You don't have to commit an offence to be a paedophile, it's a term for sexual attraction to children.

But it gets disclosed to employers so you are being punished for something that is not a crime.

Exactly. This is going to keep going through the courts as it clashes with the Human Rights Act.

Felix, do you believe because you can monitor paedophiles and people who have expressed violent intentions or are members of racist organisations you should be able to monitor everyone's opinions? Just a yes or no will do, I'm not interested in screeds of irrelevant drip feeding.

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 accept a caution then you are admitting to having done wrong. If you refuse to accept it then the case goes to court and the court will decide if you have broken the law and punish accordingly.

With a NCHI you haven't admitted to having broken any law (by definition you haven't broken any law with a NCHI). Neither has the case gone before a court. So the police can punish you by affecting your employment prospects, purely on the basis of unproven tittle-tattle. No presumption of innocence and no right to a fair trial.

These measures are positively Orwellian.

Once again for the hard of reading, I've no objection to the police recording intelligence that may aid a future investigation. But they should not be sharing anything externally which hasn't been proven (whether in court or by a caution being accepted). My issue is with extrajudicial punishments being imposed.

FoundDoris
Battery Life 12 hours - when new - diminishes with usage and the age of the battery; the battery is also built into the device so can not be changed.

Any footage can be marked as evidntial and saved indefinitely, this includes non-incidents. All footage is disclosable for any investigation - they might not be able to pass it to individual members of the public, but it is disclosable.

I don't need to know how a particular piece of equipment works, just how to use it & what it can do. For example, i don't need to know how a torch works - just how to use it and what it can do. I don't know how my radio works, how ii is able to digitize my voice from analogue to digital information and how that is actually passed to the comms operator so it can't be intercepted.

Firefighters won't know how the 'jaws of life' work. They will not need to know how specifics of the pump being able to build up sufficient hydraulic power in such a small chamber, yet have pin point accuracy in manipulating the jaws. And then how the pressure can be released, but still gain the accuracy on the jaws.

Paramedics will not need to know how the defibrillator works - how a small battery pack can deliver such a high voltage shock across the two paddles - and yet be able to monitor at the same time without a drop in its power. They just need to know how to use it & what it can do.

I agree with you also when you say it is questionable as to what was reported - i have been making this point throughout this thread.

Once again for the hard of reading, I've no objection to the police recording intelligence that may aid a future investigation. But they should not be sharing anything externally which hasn't been proven (whether in court or by a caution being accepted). My issue is with extrajudicial punishments being imposed.

Same here. If there is a criminal act, charge them.

Or caution them.

Ereshkigalangcleg
Mr Smith isn't a paedophile - he has sex with dolls
You don't have to commit an offence to be a paedophile, it's a term for sexual attraction to children.

He's not attracted to children - he is attracted to dolls dressed as children.
he's not a paedophile and commits no offences

This is going to keep going through the courts as it clashes with the Human Rights Act.
Yes - right to a private life - I get that.
So you would be happy for Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson to get their jobs then?

Felix, do you believe because you can monitor paedophiles and people who have expressed violent intentions or are members of racist organisations you should be able to monitor everyone's opinions? Just a yes or no will do, I'm not interested in screeds of irrelevant drip feeding.
That's what I am asking here
Yes - I would suggest yes. If the information is gathered and investigated as to its credibility - then any prospective employer (or who ever needs the info) can assess its relevance.

So the single sticker on the window that says 'Trans ideology erases women' will be viewed as irrelevant when that person is going for a job at a school

However if there is further information held - so that person displays lots of other posters etc with violent view points. And perhaps there are about 10 or so similar occurrences recorded - then the employer may re-assess based on this information.

Or do you disagree and say that nothing should be recorded?
Just a yes or no will do, I'm not interested in screeds of irrelevant drip feeding.

But those other things aren't a waste of time and add value to the service.

Christ on a bike.

Safeguarding I mean. Do YOU think Safeguarding is a waste of time, Felix? It sounds like you do.

He's not attracted to children - he is attracted to dolls dressed as children.

Which suggests that he's attracted to children or you wouldn't want it on his DBS, would you?

I repeat, paedophile is simply a term for a person who is sexually attracted to children.

DdraigGoch
Neither has the case gone before a court. So the police can punish you by affecting your employment prospects, purely on the basis of unproven tittle-tattle. No presumption of innocence and no right to a fair trial.

Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson have committed no offences so can not go before a court for anything.

They have also told the officers their views and this is backed up with what the officers witnessed at the address

I've no objection to the police recording intelligence that may aid a future investigation.
But, if the police record the information - then it will be disclosable in an enhanced DBS check, that's the whole point of it

So - do we record the views & opinions of Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson?

Not at all - its massively important

What I am saying, is that safeguarding is where the police resources are being depleted - not woke issues - and that's why we can not get to the crimes.

Yes - right to a private life - I get that.
So you would be happy for Mr Smith, Mr Jones & Mr Thompson to get their jobs then?

Whether I am "happy" is not the fucking point, is it? I'm not happy that men who watch rape simulation porn are in jobs with children. I'm not happy that trans activists who promote their reality-denying, harmful ideological agenda are in jobs with the children.

The point is privacy and the law. And it will keep going through the courts because it's an invasion of privacy to record and share personal info on specific, named people, when no crime has been committed.

It doesn't sound like you do understand the right to a private life, frankly. But it's all a nice deflection from the OP that people are fed up with the police disproportionately protecting some ideological stances and challenging others. Which is abundantly clear.

We should not be punishing people who have committed no crime. To do so is a serious infringement on civil liberties and is not acceptable in a free society.

He has not committed any crime and even if it was a crime he has not been proven to have done it. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle I would defend to the death.

Take for example the idiots waving "f*#& the monarchy" placards. I don't agree with them, but if I believe in freedom of speech then I must believe in it for everyone, not just those I agree with (obviously freedom of speech cuts both ways so I can freely call them "idiots" too).

Exactly

It suggests that Mr Smith is attracted to children - but there is no actual offence as it is a doll. Do we record this information somewhere?

It suggests that Mr Thompson is threatening violence towards trans people - but there is no actual offence. Do we record this somewhere?