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?

How would you justify it? Women and GC feminists are not protected by hate crime law. So sorry, I don't believe you. I think you're making it up as you go along.

Grounds for what?
What's the scenario?

But answer my question first -

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?

We are talking about non-crime incidents - so the 'crime law' doesn't apply here.

Just like Mr Smith with his dolls

the principle is the same

I've said before that I have no objection to police collecting intelligence with a view to building up a criminal case. However, information should only be disclosed to employers if it has been proven that a crime was committed.

If people who use child sex dolls are considered a risk to children (very likely), then the government should make the child sex dolls illegal and the police can prosecute people who break the law. As Mr Smith would then be a convicted sex offender, there would be no question of him working in a school.

Remind me exactly what Mr Thompson is supposed to have done?

So not only do you record things which tenuously might lead to a "hate crime" in future, but things which aren't covered by the law? And freely share them with people in enhanced DBS checks?

This is all very illuminating.

By the way, some time after I left school I came across a news report that said that one of the supply teachers I'd had in primary school had been imprisoned for sexually abusing seven pupils.

The CRB system (as was) didn't pick him up because up until that point he hadn't attracted the attention of the police. So it's not a foolproof system by any stretch of the imagination, in real life there are many Mr Smiths who evade detection. It's not worth sacrificing the core principles of our justice system, just on the off-chance (and you have to admit that it's pretty remote) that an officer spotting some legitimate (if distasteful) behaviour stops a nonce getting a job in the school.

If these child sex dolls are a gateway to actual CSA, then the government should ban them. Then a criminal offence has been committed and Mr Smith can be convicted, with a requirement to sign the sex offenders register. Because that's who should be making decisions about what information gets disclosed to an employer - the courts.

Talking of gateway crimes, posters on this board are only too aware of how lightly the police as a collective treat the well-known gateway sex crime of indecent exposure. Perhaps do something about that, rather than worrying about things which aren't actually crimes.

Talking of gateway crimes, posters on this board are only too aware of how lightly the police as a collective treat the well-known gateway sex crime of indecent exposure. Perhaps do something about that, rather than worrying about things which aren't actually crimes.

Quite.

If the police actually wanted to stop rape and murder and CSA and paedophiles, an afternoon on twitter would give them a year's work to follow up.

Wasn't there an example just a few days ago of some information being fed to the police, that they couldn't investigate as their IT system blocked the words in the evidence given?

The NSPCC had a man in rubber who had links to his fetishes on his LINKED-IN page for years, and who used to post videos of himself pissing on himself in rubber gear at work. His role was in charge of 'Talent' at the NSPCC.

But no crime committed, once it was out it was buried.

Student Officer at NUS, man who says he is a woman, videos of himself wanking at his desk.

But no crime committed, once it was out it was buried.

And lets not go there with the abject refusal to investigate any of the Child Abuse and Rape rings in the major cities of the UK.

And yet, a sticker. Two officers and a PCSO.

There is no way of explaining to this officer that wrong think is not a good reason to stop someone getting a job.

And the reason is that he has been Stonewalled. It's why he used the 'A poster saying Kill Trans' example.

It is not because there is an epidemic of people wanting to kill trans people, or killing trans people as trans people are the safest demographic in the UK.

Because he has been trained. It may not have been Stonewall badged but it is right there in black and white.

If the police actually wanted to stop rape and murder and CSA and paedophiles, an afternoon on twitter would give them a year's work to follow up.

Exactly!

Easy work though, stickers - innit?

Yes, nice few boxes ticked.

And horrifying

DdraigGoch
I have no objection to police collecting intelligence with a view to building up a criminal case. However, information should only be disclosed to employers if it has been proven that a crime was committed.

So, with Mr Smith - no crime has occurred, so nothing should be gathered.
At the moment there is no crime for possessing a sex doll and nothing to say that a crime will be made of it any time soon - so what do we do with Mr Smith in the mean time - allow him to work at a school unopposed? Not record any information on him as there is no crime? We can't send it to court to prove guilt as there is no crime - just what the officers have witnessed at the address.

"....It's not worth sacrificing the core principles of our justice system, just on the off-chance (and you have to admit that it's pretty remote) that an officer spotting some legitimate (if distasteful) behaviour stops a nonce getting a job in the..."

And if a child was hurt at the school by Mr Smith, you'd be happy to say to the family that there was nothing could be done to prevent this due to our 'core principles'

Talking of gateway crimes, posters on this board are only too aware of how lightly the police as a collective treat the well-known gateway sex crime of indecent exposure
I agree - a crime and should be investigated
So long as our resources are not depleted through safeguarding
Which comes higher on the list of priorities on the queue of jobs - a missing child or an indecent exposure? You have a job queue of 500 jobs with 20 officers available at the start of the shift - where do these jobs lie in the queue?

AlisonDonut
The NSPCC had a man in rubber who had links to his fetishes on his LINKED-IN page for years, and who used to post videos of himself pissing on himself in rubber gear at work. His role was in charge of 'Talent' at the NSPCC.
So are you saying his opinions should not be recorded and he should be allowed to continue in his job? Similar to Mr Smith?
Or are you saying the DBS check should have prevented him from getting this job role?

Student Officer at NUS, man who says he is a woman, videos of himself wanking at his desk. But no crime committed, once it was out it was buried.
Same here - should we not record anything about his 'thinking' and let him carry on his job?

And yet, a sticker. Two officers and a PCSO. - Easy work though, stickers - innit? - Like I have said previously - what was actually recorded on the initial call that warranted the response. Until we know what the actual initial call was, we can not judge the response given.

It is not because there is an epidemic of people wanting to kill trans people, or killing trans people as trans people are the safest demographic in the UK.
It doesn't matter - you have information that a person has 'opinions' which may be putting another person at risk - same with Mr Smith or Mr Jones. What should we do with that information? Ignore it or record it?

It doesn't matter - you have information that a person has 'opinions' which may be putting another person at risk - same with Mr Smith or Mr Jones. What should we do with that information? Ignore it or record it?

You wonder why people think the police are too woke and cannot deal with crimes.

You are trying to invent increasingly tighter definitions of a non-crime hate incident in order to justify ... stickers. It's no good you saying what was the information given. We know what the information given was. There is a sticker. That's it. There is no other information, because the police told her so.

They saw the sticker, knocked on her door, told her what happened and that it was all fine. They didn't question her about anything else. They didn't say it's been reported that such and such has happened and we need to check.

You can try and catch women out on here, all the live long day. As previous posters have said, if shagging plastic dolls is the gateway to further crime, then they need to be made illegal. Which, to anyone with the smallest common sense, would seem to be the ideal solution to stop the paedophile working with children.

Posie Parker was threatened with arrest for using the word castration. From two out of town coppers who lived in the same town as the woman who made the complaint.

Woke.

If you want to stop paedophiles, go onto Twitter and take a look at all the posters who describe the age of the children they are interested in shagging.

If you want to justify women being targeted by TRAs on the basis that it has to happen otherwise you can't stop paedophiles, be expected to be called woke.

My perception, just on this thread, is not just that you are 'woke', it's that you struggle with nuance, like to try and catch women out, and don't give a flying fuck for most of what we're saying.

Stop being surprised about the opening post, when you are doing everything to reinforce it.

Student Officer at NUS, man who says he is a woman, videos of himself wanking at his desk. But no crime committed, once it was out it was buried.
Same here - should we not record anything about his 'thinking' and let him carry on his job?

Ahem. He is now a Director of a Manchester Grants company.

No, it would appear that even wanking at your desk in a university, and posting images of it online doesn't affect the 'sacred caste'. But you'll still 'crime' completely unsubstantiated accusations that will stop women from getting a job.

My perception, just on this thread, is not just that you are 'woke', it's that you struggle with nuance, like to try and catch women out, and don't give a flying fuck for most of what we're saying.

Spookily this is my perception too!

Ahem. He is now a Director of a Manchester Grants company.

Also posted drawings about underage sex I believe, so the fabulous monitoring system that was supposed to kick in to warn people was obviously on the blink that day.

And we've been talking about non crime hate incidents. Are you a bit confused? Is that why you keep bringing up irrelevancies?

Datun
So what should we do with the information - record it or ignore it?

We know what the information given was - do we, I have asked several times on here for it to be given. So what was on the initial call to police and what information was given to the police when they spoke to the reporting person. Yes, i know it was a PCSO - but what was the information? You need to have a transcript of that call or the email or the report to make any kind of judgement on the police response to this. You're only going on one person's view point.

As previous posters have said, if shagging plastic dolls is the gateway to further crime, then they need to be made illegal. - i would agree with you, but at present its not illegal or a crime, so what do we do in the mean time - record it or not?

If you want to stop paedophiles, go onto Twitter and take a look at all the posters - we do, we have a cyber crime team that does that. But the public see those as 'police hiding behind desk jobs.'

My perception, just on this thread, is not just that you are 'woke', it's that you struggle with nuance, like to try and catch women out. I'm not trying to catch anyone out. I am asking should we adopt the principle that we do not record any information on a person if they have not committed any crime and just have non crime 'opinions'? So if we have examples such as Mr Smith, Mr Jones, Mr Thompson - nothing should be recorded on them at all?

And i do care what your views are on this - that's why i am answering your posts.

AlisonDonut
Ahem. He is now a Director of a Manchester Grants company.

Exactly my point - so should this information have been recorded and used to prevent him from obtaining his employment position? after all no crime has occurred

Would you think this was acceptable?

Or does the principle still stand that we should not record any non crime information?

Yes - so have I

the examples I have given are non crime incidents (Smith) & non crime hate incidents (Jones & Thompson)

i did this to cover both aspects

Exactly my point - so should this information have been recorded and used to prevent him from obtaining his employment position? after all no crime has occurred

You are missing the point.

This thread and the report is about focusing on woke and not concentrating on actual crime.

You are still bleating on about 'information being recorded with no crime having occurred' - wokeness.

We are saying 'this man actually took his penis out at work, and photographed himself wanking, posted it on social media and still nothing'. ie an actual crime was committed and NOTHING HAPPENS. It didn't need to be on a file, it was in the newspapers and STILL nothing stopped him from getting another job.

And you cannot even see this. You are more focused yet again on recording information when no crime has occurred and we are saying we would rather you actually focused on crimes that have been committed.

So as well as non-crime hate incidents, there are also just non-crime incidents? Well, that seems like a very wide category.

The blindness is extraordinary.

Felix125 i'm not being funny, but your determination to try and prove the opening post wrong is not done by inventing weirder and weirder scenarios to justify it.

ScreamingMeMe
there are loads of non crime incidents police deal with - here, Mr Smith is having sex with dolls - whats the crime? Whats the hate crime?

Datun
Felix125 i'm not being funny, but your determination to try and prove the opening post wrong is not done by inventing weirder and weirder scenarios to justify it.
but you either have a principle you stick with - or not. Do we record everything or not?

And i am saying that the time taken with these 'woke' issues is insignificant when compared with the time taken through safeguarding issues. That's where the resources issues lie.

AlisonDonut
Your original post never mentioned that he posted it on social media

Right, so a crime of malicious communications.

I take it there was a person who made a complaint - what happened to that complaint, did they provide a statement, did they want to attend court, was the image secured etc etc.

Why was there no detected crime for this - evidential difficulties, victim is not supporting......

What was the conclusion, was he convicted?

Was the employer aware of this incident and allowed him to remain at work despite his adjudication? If that's the case, this is down to the employer to justify, not the police, if the police have recorded the information they had.

When the job came in - where did it land in the queue - right at the top or half way down? Were there other 'woke' jobs that were higher in the queue than this one?