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?

Ereshkigalangcleg
So you would not want any information on Mr Smith, Mr Jones or Mr Thomson recorded anywhere for prospective employers (or similar) to use it.

And you would support the police if they say that there was nothing they could do - as they can not record people's opinions if something bad was to happen?

This has zero to do with non crime hate incidents, but as a general principle unless there has been a crime committed or you have some sort of special dispensation to monitor these specific men like terror suspects, I don't believe you have the right to share this information, no.

And you would support the police if they say that there was nothing they could do - as they can not record people's opinions if something bad was to happen?

Yes. I believe the police punishing people for legal actions is too high a price to pay. Hope that helps.

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).

This. I'm personally happy with people threatening "death to" anyone (eg not just trans people or other protected groups) being a criminal offence, so there would be no need for a secret registry of wrongthink.

The question was are the police force being seen as too woke. The answer is yes.

Because they don't seem to be able to distinguish between stickers and intelligence gathering with a view to preventing child rape.

And I've got to tell you, yet again, Felix, that yes, there will absolutely be many, many people who think that you cannot record information that isn't criminal, with a view to affecting someone's future livelihood.

You are leveraging this all with the outcome that potential child rape could have been prevented. Which, is an entirely understandable justification (but certainly not for everyone, please understand that), but it is not a justification for going to look at stickers, and knocking on the door of the person who has them.

We all agree that the PCSO was wrong. But so were those police officers. And if they drove there in a rainbow washed car, then you cannot ever blame the public for their perception, can you.

For me, if you have a rule that says you must intelligence gather to prevent crime, which also covers looking at stickers, then you need to change the rule. The police must be trained to understand how to grade this sort of information.

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

@Felix125 how do you know that?

Ereshkigalangcleg & DdraigGoch
This has everything to do with non crime hate incidents - this is what this is

If Mr Thompson took accepted his employment 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

The murder of course is a crime - but should his opinions discovered weeks before the murder happened, have been recorded?

after all:
"....as a general principle unless there has been a crime committed or you have some sort of special dispensation to monitor these specific men like terror suspects, I don't believe you have the right to share this information, no.."

"...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..."

Datun
Were back to
'What was actually reported to the police officers on the initial report'?

Try actually reading my post. I answered you, at length. I said that on balance it's too high a price for the police to intrude that much into private lives. It's nothing to do with anyone else if no crime has been committed. It shouldn't be used to penalise people and you are making up increasingly more extreme scenarios to make it sound bad, with the benefit of hindsight that no one could have had.

But I am happy with people threatening people or specific groups with death to be criminalised. Give them all a criminal record. I think you will find more of them are trans activists than gender critical feminists.

Because it will be one isolated incident

But may not be - i agree with you - the employer may find that that is enough not to give that person a job

But where is the line drawn as to what is or isn't recorded.

1 sticker, 2 stickers, 100 stickers, 100 stickers & 100 posters
1 doll, 2 dolls, 10 dolls dressed as children, 10 dolls dressed as elderly people

Where do we draw a line - or is it all or nothing?

If they have committed no criminal offences then they should not be punished, no matter how disagreeable you or I may find them. This is a free society.

If parliament deems that Mr Smith's exotic doll collection are not acceptable in a free society, then they can pass a law banning them (I've a feeling that child sex dolls - if not already banned - were going to be). Then his activities become a criminal offence and if he continues he can be dealt with through the criminal justice system.

Ditto Mr Jones' EDL membership. If the government decides that public interest outweighs the EDL's right to freedom of expression, then the government can make it a proscribed organisation. Until that point, its members remain free to display banners, so long as those banners aren't themselves in breach of the law.

The police are not there to be judge, jury and executioner. This is a free society, and the principles upon which that is based are far too important to lose, even when it makes it harder for the police or intelligence services to do their jobs.

Ereshkigalangcleg
But the point is that there is no crime committed here

And if we have a principle of not recording anything that is not a crime and just an opinion or view point - then Mr Smith, Jones & Thompson will follow that principle.

either the principle is good or the principle is bad

And I've said that you shouldn't have the right to share information about them when they haven't committed a crime. I'm happy for you to give Mr Death to Trans People a criminal record.

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

And risk Mr Smith working in a school or Mr Thompson working with trans people?

If they have committed no criminal offences then they should not be punished, no matter how disagreeable you or I may find them. This is a free society.

If parliament deems that Mr Smith's exotic doll collection are not acceptable in a free society, then they can pass a law banning them (I've a feeling that child sex dolls - if not already banned - were going to be). Then his activities become a criminal offence and if he continues he can be dealt with through the criminal justice system.

Ditto Mr Jones' EDL membership. If the government decides that public interest outweighs the EDL's right to freedom of expression, then the government can make it a proscribed organisation. Until that point, its members remain free to display banners, so long as those banners aren't themselves in breach of the law.

The police are not there to be judge, jury and executioner. This is a free society, and the principles upon which that is based are far too important to lose, even when it makes it harder for the police or intelligence services to do their jobs.

This.

What would you do if he had a "death to TERFs" poster?

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

And risk Mr Smith working in a school or Mr Thompson working with trans people?

Yes or no

Would you risk him working in an environment where there may be women who disagree with gender identity ideology?

What would you do if he had a "death to TERFs" poster?

What would you do? Would you record it?

Another of the principles upon which English justice is founded is that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be locked up.

If someone is a criminal then they should go through due process. If there is a loophole in the law, then parliament should close that loophole. It is not for the police to make it their own business to fill in where the law falls short.

Would you risk him working in an environment where there may be women who disagree with gender identity ideology?

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

And risk Mr Smith working in a school or Mr Thompson working with trans people?

yes or no?

Another of the principles upon which English justice is founded is that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be locked up.

Exactly. However much I really hate the idea of rapists and murderers going free, it's a cornerstone of our society that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. As pp said (may have been you) Felix needs to campaign for things he doesn't agree with to be made criminal offences.

Yes - it would be recorded on the same principles as Smith, Jones & Thompson

Under what grounds?