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?

@ Felix
fYour ‘example’ of Mr Smith the doll shagger doesn’t bear up, though, when you look at what is actually happening in society now. You think that Mr Smith should be on some sort of list , so what about the Girl Guide ‘leader’ who posed with his/ her gun in sexualised underwear, specifically saying that he/ she was looking forward to getting together with the Guides? ( only saying he or she because I can’t remember what they were ‘identifying’ as at the time). As I understand it there is not list that they are in, except of the stunning and brave. What about the men identified to police by under age girls and their parents as sexually abusing them, who were not placed in any list ( except possibly of the untouchables)?

don’t you see that making up examples of predatory and warning behaviour which you should be concerned about in a reality where such signs are continuously ignored and even endorsed, is just meaningless?

BTW I hope you are spending all this time replying when you are not on duty, or the crime , sorry, incident rate in your town is going to be through the roof!

TastefulRainbowUnicorn
The title of the thread concerns police are "more interested in being woke than solving crimes"

So we are too busy on other matters (woke issues) to be interested in crimes

I would answer this by saying that its not the case - Each day, we will get 500-1000 jobs requiring police. Of these a tiny proportion will be 'woke' type things. These will drop down the event queue, leaving the emergencies at the top.

The fact that we can't progress any of the crimes we have to deal with will not be because of the woke jobs on the queue - these will be few and far between.

The reason we constantly have no one free to deal with crime is through safeguarding issues which deplete the resources available. And at present I can't see a solution to this other than we need more resources.

That is what this thread is about as posed by the question.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen
So, your suggesting that the girl guide leader should have this information recorded if it was brought to the attention of police?

The men sexually abusing girls - this is a crime and should have been dealt with as such.

don’t you see that making up examples of predatory and warning behaviour which you should be concerned about in a reality where such signs are continuously ignored and even endorsed, is just meaningless?

I agree - we should be concerned - and organisations such as schools and girl guides should take this information more seriously. But is that a suggestion that because people have slipped through the net, we shouldn't record anything on them anymore?

Either the principle to record such information is good or the principle is bad.

Yes - I am off duty when posting things on here. Hence why its often at silly o'clock in the morning when I do and there are gaps of 12 hours or so between posts

In the light of the recent arrests for people expressing republican sentiments, does it seem like the problem with (not all) police is less about wokeness specifically and more about a kind of midwit authoritarianism? Wokeness is a great outlet for none too bright authoritarians, but it’s not the only outlet.

Obviously the government should avoid training cops in ideologies that encourage authoritarian and anti free speech instincts, because it seems like many people drawn to the profession need those instincts to be counteracted, not reinforced.

Childlike sex dolls may be prohibited under the Obscene Publications Act:
www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sex-dolls-childlike

If these objects need to be banned, then parliament need to ban them. It's the place of the police to get "ahead of the law" (to borrow a phrase). It doesn't matter how good your motives are, the end does not justify the means.

Interesting to note though that the CPS says that the question of whether these objects lead to more serious crimes is inconclusive. Unlike indecent exposure.

I'm going to repeat my earlier suggestion that the police need to take seriously allegations of indecent exposure on the basis that there is a clear link between that crime and more serious sexual offences. The police collectively have long regarded indecent exposure as trivial and as we all know there has been an outcry about their failure to investigate an allegation (supported by CCTV evidence) which turned out to have involved one of their officers who later went on to rape and murder a woman. Let's concentrate on actual crimes, not tittle-tattle.

If someone makes a report that their neighbour may be switching his number plates then of course the police should make a note and investigate the allegation to see if a crime has been committed. If a crime has been committed (Section 44, Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 presumably) then the neighbour should be prosecuted.

What the police should not do, is pass the allegations (which are unproven thus far) over to the neighbour's employer. Only once the allegations have been proven (in court, or if the neighbour admits it and accepts a police caution) should the information become available for anyone outside the police/CPS etc. to know.

Obviously there are circumstances where it is appropriate to involve the employer; for example should they need to be interviewed as a witness.

This discussion has broadened beyond a simple "are the police wasting too much time on trivia?" It now encompasses the wider issues of civil liberties.

Good points.

So, your suggesting that the girl guide leader should have this information recorded if it was brought to the attention of police?

I don't believe that a crime was committed so the police should not be involved.

The person's (publicly visible) social media profile was very unprofessional and in conflict with the policies of the organisation they were representing. Therefore it is only right that Girl Guiding UK belatedly commenced an investigation and the social media pages came down. In the same way that if I posted things my workplace didn't like, I risk being hauled in for a bollocking, but as no criminal offence is committed the police do not get involved.

It's useful to note that the Free Speech Union has offered assistance to those who have been charged. I strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed on those placards, think that the timing is insensitive and some of the wording disgusting. But I must step away from the temptation to want them sent to the tower, because it could be me next. The police must likewise avoid the temptation to do whatever the mob is baying for.

From the founders of British policing:
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law,

So @Felix125, to answer your earlier question about whether I'd support the police if Mr Smith turns out to be a nonce - it should not matter what I, nor any other member of the public, thinks. You need the public to respect you, not like you. If you cannot do something because the law doesn't allow it, then it's not your fault that it cannot be done.

Intelligence isn't intelligence if you aren't allowed to record it because it would be illegal.

I used to work in a sector where we were allowed to hold information under very specific circumstances for a specific period of time. After that time expired, you know what happened? It was destroyed, and the people involved went about their lives as if it had never existed.

There are countries where the police or the military are allowed to go around and record anything they see, anything the neighbours report, that is suspicious to someone. Files are kept with this information. That information can be used for things like which jobs you might get.

People who think that is ok should not be members of a police force here.

So if the principles holds - do we not record any information on either scenario?

For the principle argument - either the argument is good or the argument is bad

As you can see, the principle is considered bad by people who understand we are not a police state. As other posters have said, you're not here to be liked, you're here to police crime. All this Macarena dancing, and rainbow washing would indicate a desire to be liked.

And that's what the opening post is about. The thread is about whether or not you are perceived to be woke. And the answer is yes.

You keep saying that you don't know what was said in the sticker situation, when you do know. Although you don't have a recording of the call the PCSO made, you do have one of her and the woman she complained about. They had an extremely long conversation discussing the complaint.

And, of course, the missing bit of daftness to me, is sending two officers to investigate, rather than phoning the PCSO and bloody asking her what was on the sticker. At which point, she should've been told off for wasting police time.

But more importantly, you're not acknowledging all the other times that this has happened.

A woman posting ribbons. I believe it went as far as the CPS. Who bloody sat on it for months. Hence the constant saying, the process is the punishment.

Another woman posting stickers in a town awash with other stickers that were ignored.

A woman being visited by two out of town police for using the word castration. What possible justification is there for that?

Lesbians have been removed from venues for no crime, whatsoever. Hence the meme lesbians on chairs.

This is happening.

You are claiming that nothing can be done about it, because everything has to be treated equally. Many people here disagree. But if that is indeed the case, then you need some urgent training as to how you are being manipulated by activists gleefully exploiting the policy.

We're not imagining this, it's happening. Targeting women for protesting against a wholesale attack on their rights is unacceptable. Getting the police to help you is bloody scandalous.

Stop throwing up your hands and saying there's nothing to be done about it because of doll shagging and paedophilia.

Bloody hell, you talk about safeguarding. This entire issue is about safeguarding. Allowing men into changing rooms where women and girls are disrobing, and those women being able to do fuck all about it? Giving rapists incarcerated women as part of their sentence? Hiring a male in BDSM gear, cracking a whip and asking if you want to be punished, in the girl guides?

This is happening.

And the police are being used as a tool to help it.

I've been over on the mm v lgbt thread, someone commented on a different ongoing court case. A teacher and chaplain is suing his former employer a Christian CoE school. He pushed back a little when the school decided to go all in on lgbt inclusion after a visit by a self described activist. He spoken, respectfully (he claims), against it in his weekly sermon. Amongst other things, the school reported him to prevent. I've not seen the sermon, the school's action against the man, Bernard Randall, may be justified. What concerns me is this:

On 1 July 2019, a Derbyshire police officer, Richard Barker, responded to the report to Prevent saying that the sermon posed no counter-terrorism risk. However, documents reveal that according to the DSL, he gave his personal opinion that the sermon “was wholly inappropriate for a school, and society in general.”

I don't believe the po has any business giving his personal opinion in a professional capacity. But it seems very woke.

I've just seen this on Twitter and thought it fitted on here.

twitter.com/AntiNarrativee/status/1569995821424463872

I don't know the background but it seems like a group of people were arrested for a Public Order offence for holding a Russian flag. I can't say I'd go around and hold a Russian flag but I can't see why it's not allowed even if it offends someone.

Great post Datun

Bloody hell, you talk about safeguarding. This entire issue is about safeguarding. Allowing men into changing rooms where women and girls are disrobing, and those women being able to do fuck all about it? Giving rapists incarcerated women as part of their sentence? Hiring a male in BDSM gear, cracking a whip and asking if you want to be punished, in the girl guides?

This is happening.

And the police are being used as a tool to help it.

I'd also add that the police standing back and doing nothing while counter protesters act badly, allowing these counter protesters to get right in women's faces and even follow them is a safeguarding failure and shows clear bias.

+1

Ffs. It's all getting a bit Minority Report.

FFS indeed.

Perhaps that's an automated message
Or, considering other reports, giving the tras enough rope to hang themselves.

TastefulRainbowUnicorn
What training have we received in ideologies that encourage authoritarian and anti free speech instincts?

DdraigGoch
It's the place of the police to get "ahead of the law" - so are you saying that there is something we should record on Mr Smith's activities with the dolls then?

And where do we not take flashing seriously? Its a crime, so is recorded as such and investigated. But to come back to my earlier point - I have a queue of crimes that i am unable to get to due to the amount of time I am engaged with safeguarding issues, not woke issues. This is why incidents such as flashing stay on the job queue for ages and even when an officer crimes it, we can't get back to investigate it. That's what we need a solution to if you are wanting us to take crime more seriously

MangyInseam
Intelligence isn't intelligence if you aren't allowed to record it because it would be illegal.
So do we record the intelligence gained from Mr Smith or not - if its recordable, then its disclosable and may be disclosed in a DBS check

Or do the police just not record anything they see in his house, as currently he's not breaking any law

Then just hope nothing bad happens to any child at his school.

Datun
I disagree with you on - 'not being here to be liked'.

How on earth I am supposed to make a victim of a serious crime feel assured & confident if i start off with the mantra that I'm not here to be liked?

If we are not supposed to be liked - how can we expect missing children at an event to seek safety?

We have spoken about the Macarana dance previously.
The officers have been directed to patrol that event and that part of the event as a separate operation. Probably as a cancelled rest day. So at that time, they can't do any crime fighting, can't progress any crime enquiries they have. Do they just stand there and look mean - or do they get involved with the crowd?
And its nothing about being woke - its about engaging with the crowd & crowd dynamics.

You keep saying that you don't know what was said in the sticker situation, when you do know. Although you don't have a recording of the call the PCSO made, you do have one of her and the woman she complained about.
No - we don't know. We really, really don't know what was said. You have one side of it, but not the other. You have one side of it saying what the other person might have said, but you don't have both and you don't have the initial call to gauge what the response was by the dispatcher - so you can't judge on the response unless you have all the information.

And, of course, the missing bit of daftness to me, is sending two officers to investigate, rather than phoning the PCSO and bloody asking her what was on the sticker. At which point, she should've been told off for wasting police time.
They have probably sent the next available unit - which happens to be double crewed. Or a double crewed unit who was on an arrest attempt which was unsuccessful, may have been sent to clear a job of a queue. This would not specifically require two officers. This happens all the time with us - comms try and winkle as many jobs as they can off the queue when they realise a unit has become free and there is no ongoing emergencies.

If you phone the PCSO up again and asked her what was on the sticker - if she says 'well nothing much really, just an opinion' it would have been binned off. But what if the PCSO embellished it and lied and made all sorts of horrendous things that was going on there and in the address. Do we just ignore this? That's why we need to see what was actually reported?

When the officers attended the address, they might not disclose everything that has been alleged if they have found that there is no evidence to it once she opened the door to them and looked inside. If it was just a sticker - fine. but what else was alleged in the initial call - we just don't know.

all the other times that this has happened.
Again, you are going to have to give some sort of clue as to the original call before we can judge the response - not just look at the conclusion. If cases have gone as far as CPS, then there are several 'gate-keeping' steps to warrant a CPS decision - so it has obviously gone passed a threshold test for a crime enquiry - which is what people on here want us to investigate.

Bloody hell, you talk about safeguarding. This entire issue is about safeguarding. Allowing men into changing rooms where women and girls are disrobing, and those women being able to do fuck all about it? Giving rapists incarcerated women as part of their sentence? Hiring a male in BDSM gear, cracking a whip and asking if you want to be punished, in the girl guides?
I agree - all wrong.
Were the police called at the time and what was the response?
What were the crimes alleged here specifically by the reporting persons and what was the outcome to the enquiry?

If there was no crime - do you think the police should record something on them?

Mr Brown regularly attends the local swimming baths and enters the female changing rooms at busy times. When challenged, he claims to be female.

So if no crime has occurred (for example) or no-one has reported it to police and the police have just 'happened across this information' do we record it somewhere?

Or not record it as its not breaking any law and its just his opinion?

People do shit things. A police state is not the answer, however much you would like it to be. - to quote another poster

And its nothing about being woke - its about engaging with the crowd & crowd dynamics.

You're not listening.

If the police were doing that, and being perceived to engender respect and solve crime it wouldn't be a problem.

But they're not.

You keep justifying why people's perceptions are wrong.

Why do you think the police are perceived as woke and unable to solve real crime?

Datun
So if we were on top of all crime - this wouldn't be a problem

Why do you think the police are perceived as woke and unable to solve real crime?
I don't think the two things are linked - or certainly not to the extent that crime is not being solved. Crime is not being solved for a whole host of reasons.

The amount of woke things we deal with on a day-to-day basis is insignificant compared to everything else we have do. It this that is preventing us detecting crimes - not woke things.

Felix.

Do me a favour and Google the word 'perceived'.

The whole population doesn't check you for permission to have an opinion.

This thread is about the perception that people have about you. If you don't like it, stop keeping secret records about people and stick to actual illegal activity. Aka crimes.

Ffs. Again.