The police

[BlackForestCake]

I was just thinking that the GC analysis is the only one that can explain the behaviour of police forces up and down the country.

The liberal position is “It’s awful that the police are institutionally racist and misogynist, but it’s great that they stand up for LGBTQ+ people!”

No. The promotion of trans ideology is part of the misogyny.

There would have been murders in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc - they were just not publicised as they are now. Are you trying to suggest that the police force in the 60s, 70s, 80s had no corruption?

There would be a record of them and I can find none. Maybe you can. No, I am not suggesting those decades had no corruption, we are all well aware that they did, I am not talking about corruption I am talking about murder of women.

Until you can come up with evidence that there have always been police officers murdering women then my point stands - what are the differences between then and now that all of a sudden we have this:

Women have been killed by at least 15 serving or former police officers in the UK since 2009, new figures reveal

Yep, you think that alone might have piqued and interest into why he was referred to in those terms wouldn't you and sparked an investigation?

The victim of one incident can be classed as a liar and the police should ignore them. Yet, the victim in another incident with a similar back ground must be believed.

Stop it. The two incidents were not the same. The one is a serial complainant against women who do not play the TWAW game. It cannot be impossible to work that one out. the other wone was an actual fucking stalker who killed his victim because the police are fucking useless.

You have excuse after excuse after excuse. But during lockdown, for eg we saw the police going in pairs to tell women out for a walk with coffee that it wsn't allowed. Was that good use of your time? resources? or did it highlight more than ever what kind of people join up?

Are you suggesting we upset a man by enquiring as to his behaviour? Whatever next!

VestofAbsurdity
Which serving police officers have been found guilty of murder?
There will be murders in the 60s, 70s, - perhaps we are better at investigating them now and not covering them up in the ranks - since you agree that those decades had lots of corruption in the police.

Brefugee
So, I am asking you at what point do the police ignore the initial call?
At what point do we class the caller as a person who is just a serial complainer and is probably lying and can be ignored, in the Farrow case for example?

Is it the number of convictions/incidents against them of dishonesty offences?
Is the number of cases they have reported that have not resulted in a prosecution?

Do we not investigate the compliant at all?

Do we use this across the board with all people reporting stuff?

The lock-down was policing the pandemic, that's why offences were brought in to try and stop the spread of the virus. Most people stuck to the strict rules, but some didn't. Were the police just to ignore these breaches?

For me, emergency response just carried on as normal, as jobs kept coming in and me and my colleagues never got involved in any lock-down offences.

AlisonDonut
And i have said a number of times on here that intelligence against someone should be used - i can't understand why people on here are against that.

And still he doesn't listen.

Tallisker
And they don't listen to me as my questions go unanswered.

I answered your post about schools allowing suicidal children to just walk out of school because they are not allowed to stop them and i asked you if you think that this is acceptable - but you never answered that.

So if i'm answering the points raised by posters - what exactly am I not listening too?

Felix you patrol these threads demanding we show evidence and when we do you dismiss it.

Why can't you just let us talk unsupervised?

We don't owe you shit. Stop patrolling us. We all have our own eyes and can see what is going on here.

Alison 👍

AlisonDonut
Its a discussion forum..... to discuss things.

I'm not patrolling - I'm asking as part of the discussion - if you don't want to discuss it, then don't

And i'm not just talking to you, but as a group of posters in general

The Farrow case was mentioned a while back and it was eluded that the police should not have taken the reporting person seriously in this case and should not have even spoken to Farrow let alone arrest her.

So - if the police service is to improve on things like this - I am asking the question:

At what point do the police ignore the initial call?

At what point do we class the caller as a person who is just a serial complainer and is probably lying and can be ignored, in the Farrow case for example?

Is it the number of convictions/incidents against them of dishonesty offences?
Is the number of cases they have reported that have not resulted in a prosecution?

Do we not investigate the compliant at all?

Do we use this across the board with all people reporting stuff?

It's a meme. That's she didn't post. For fucks sake pull your head out of your arse and do your fucking jobs.

AlisonDonut
Well discuss and answer the points above.

So when the reporting person phones up, you want the police to automatically assume "It's a meme. That's she didn't post" without any evidence, investigation - nothing.

It's also a feminist forum. Not a man's forum. The fact that you think our experiences are u fo

Up for discussion says it all.

So I take it you can't answer them then. bye bye

How many years does a woman have to be harassed for to be believed? I think this one has been harassing her with menace for 4 now?
And all the others.

If I know the back story it doesn't take Sherlock fucking Holmes to do some of their own research does it?

Detectives my arse.

What is now, 30 failed attempts to take various people to court all paid for by the taxpayer? I'm happy to send you lot a fucking magnifying glass if it helps you out a bit.

So is that the cut off 4 years?
1 year, 2 year - so many convictions?

What?

What is the cut off where the police refuse to take seriously a constant caller?

I mean you can even do a search on the courts system to find this out. It's not hard.

So failed convictions at court count also

He's a convicted sex offender who served in prison for having sex with a minor.

But no, let's completely forget that shall we…

Years and years and years of harassment and abuse, year of pizzas being delivered to the house, years of abuse websites all documented and reported.

But it's a male so we have to take every word he says as the gospel.

Threats if golf clubs,and photos taken in her village. But let's completely ignore all that.

So because he is a convicted sex offender - any future calls he males to police we should ignore?

How about if he was a convicted burglar or shop thief