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.

I don't know about suicidal pupils as it's never come up seeing as the age group I work in it's not really an issue.
I do know that we are not allowed to chase runaways in case we accidentally chase them into oncoming traffic etc.

I brought up that comparison because when something goes wrong schools and education take responsibility and directly address the issues.

They don't tell women to flag down fucking buses.

Personally I'd be embarrassed to defend that kind of incompetence but you do you.

My broadband has been down so I've just got back to this thread. I wasn't going to bother but I am livid at your response to my post : 13/11/2022 16:52 :

He was arrested for malicious communications - there is no such offence of ’re-tweeting a meme’;
You have to establish what the original call to the police was by the reporting person - and what that reporting person was disclosing that required a police response.
Is this a job that fell onto the non-emergency event queue and was being dealt with ‘as and when’; - probably so, as the article doesn't
state that police attended on an immediate response.
Is there a bigger back story to this which you are not aware of. Look at the man I arrested for wishing his ex-partner ‘all the best’; on social media. That was a job I had initially collected off the event queue - was I wrong to arrest him as he declared on his social media account? After all, it was a non offensive comment he made.

My response
I asked you if you were aware of the case I drew your attention to, you didn't say yes so I assume you aren't. Earlier I asked if you were aware of the Harry Miller case, again you didn't answer. Actually I doubt if you even looked at the links. Instead you simply repeat ‘it's all so complicated’ in an attempt to defend the reputation of the police.

I am going to explain this as simply as I possibly can.
Firstly what I said was ‘Arrests made leading to no further action for the heinous action of retweeting a meme.’ Action not crime because there was not a crime, that is the point. Here is what should have happened.

Police receive complaint about an ‘offensive' tweet. (not harassment or abuse)
Police read the tweet.
Police consider whether it meets the threshold of the crime of malicious communication or harassment.
Police check the connection with the complainant, was it sent to them, is it about them, do they have any personal connection to the tweeter?

At this point there is nothing to ‘investigate’ the evidence is the tweet, the tweeter is known, and there is no significant connection to the complainant.
What is then necessary is determining the next step giving due regard to the human right of the tweeter to freedom of speech and the urgency.
(Job written off at source without deployment I.e. the first stage according to you.)

This is what should have happened to this complaint. The police should have said to the complainant ‘ We understand you feel offended or made unsafe by this tweet, however it does not meet the threshold of a crime and therefore we cannot take any further action. In this country we do not police people's legitimate freedom of speech or offer them words of advice'

Instead these officers harassed and intimidated a member of the public with no justification even trying to bully him into attending a course at his own expense. These officers abused their power and instead of calling them out you want to give them the benefit of the (imaginary) doubt.

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

you're talking at us not discussing. We see you @Felix125

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?

We'll ask the pertinent question here: the person who reported her is a SERIAL REPORTER of women. Serial. What are you doing about him?

I think Felix is simply attempting to explain- not mansplain- the challenges of policing. I don't see him as the enemy because I understand much of what he is saying but I guess that's from the perspective of being in policing which no one else in this thread is .

@stillvicarinatutu i don't always agree with you but i'm always pleased to see you around.

Talking about the Farrow case can you explain to us in very simple words that mere civilian ladies can understand: the person reporting her, and other women, is a serial reporter of women who have done nothing wrong. Serial. Over and over. Why isn't he immediately questioned about exactly what the fuck he is up to?

Felix is disingenuously talking over everyone, at everyone and if i see one more "but even though they have 76 speeding fines, we can't say they're a menace and they should deffo be allowed in the force because we're all fab yah boo sucks to you" (in essence)

Well, Felix, a good approach to questions like that might be to ask - how did we avoid arresting people for thought crimes 20 years ago? How do they avoid it in other places where it isn't a problem?

Maybe a good start would be stop giving training that misrepresents the law, and science, and start giving some pretty serious training on the nature of civil liberties.

@stillvicarinatutu if you are genuine could I suggest you read the "non-rapes" thread over on feminism chat. In among all those horrific stories, observe how Felix behaves and the arrogance and complete lack of compassion or empathy on display. Maybe then you'll understand why some of us do not believe he is acting with women's interests in mind.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4648441-a-list-of-seemingly-unbelievable-not-rapes-according-to-the-cps-and-juries
Link to thread mentioned.

Fwiw - I completely agree with on this . The crime wasn't made out , it wasn't a crime , or a non crime . It should have been shut down at the very first hurdle .

This is what I was saying about different individual officers and whether they take the path of least resistance or not - but someone should be managing them and saying do t be so bloody ridiculous. Or more tactfully as you have out it - I'm sorry this offends you but being offended is not a crime - end of story .

I don't understand what's happening. And yes the police are being used and because some officers and forces are too afraid to tell the truth and say no - the scale of this is actually worrying.

100% agree with this as well .

I'm gonna be honest - as a woman , I had a pretty terrible experience on a date about 7 years ago . What started off as consensual took a nasty and unexpected turn . I was injured . I went to work next day and broke down and confided in a colleague. I didn't make any official complaint or report it . I knew what I'd have to be subjected to and couldn't face it . Plus having my name fragged through the mud and through court .
I've been to rapes and always believed the victim , but there really is a barrier - the CPS really seem determined not to prosecute. I'm reading the other thread now . It sums up why I didn't report my incident . And I was already in the police by then and I still wouldn't report it .

That's shameful isn't it ?

Yep.

Thank you for reading. Also ResisterRex posted a thread of resources for investigations into the police yesterday or the day before...the first link is to a site where victims of police abuse or failings post their stories. Again further insight into why people feel there are institutional failings in the police force. Felix also likes to repeatedly state that because x process would be followed, y cannot happen...we know processes and procedures are in place but we also know they are not always followed either by choice or design. Also there are plenty of "bad apples" who abuse their position. Also these issues are not confined to the UK...some examples from Ireland:
www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/gardai-routinely-cancelled-999-emergency-calls-when-changing-shifts-according-to-new-whistleblower-42015076.html
www.mumsnet.com/talk/craicnet/4597533-horrific-case-due-for-sentencing

You have nothing to feel ashamed of in that situationbut it is a shameful reflection of our society, of those who should protect us and of what we all know as women, and learn from a very early age.

TenPointsFromHufflepuff
I brought up that comparison because when something goes wrong schools and education take responsibility and directly address the issues.
They don't tell women to flag down fucking buses.
I've not defended it - never have and never will.
But to say that schools take responsibility and address the issue isn't totally right either - if they are allowing a suicidal pupil to regularly run from school and not make any attempt to stop them at any point, just in case the run onto a main road. I wouldn't say this was safeguarding them

Imnobody4
I am going to explain this as simply as I possibly can.
Firstly what I said was ‘Arrests made leading to no further action for the heinous action of retweeting a meme.’ Action not crime because there was not a crime, that is the point. Here is what should have happened.
Police receive complaint about an ‘offensive' tweet. (not harassment or abuse)
Police read the tweet.
Police consider whether it meets the threshold of the crime of malicious communication or harassment.
Police check the connection with the complainant, was it sent to them, is it about them, do they have any personal connection to the tweeter?
At this point there is nothing to ‘investigate’ the evidence is the tweet, the tweeter is known, and there is no significant connection to the complainant.
What is then necessary is determining the next step giving due regard to the human right of the tweeter to freedom of speech and the urgency.
(Job written off at source without deployment I.e. the first stage according to you.)

Excellent and I totally agree with you 100%

In fact I would say this is how most incidents are written off at the call taker stage without any job being created for deployment.

But, just so we can judge in this case, what was the 'meme' that was under consideration? Was there anything else posted with it? What was on the initial call made to police which the call taker judged and wasn't able to write off at source?

if you can post this then we can judge if it was mal comms or harassment?

Brefugee
We get lots of 'serial callers' - some accusing the same individual of something
Some just accusing random people or disclosing random events.
We get the same suicidal people phoning say they are going to end it all
The same children going missing ever night from care homes

The fire brigade will get the same type of serial calls which are essentially a hoax
The ambulance service will get the same

At what point do we ignore the calls then?
Is there a point where we can class them as a 'serial complainer of non events' and prosecute them instead? Its the old 'cry wolf'' scenario

This is what I have been asking - what do we use to judge this on people?

Felix is disingenuously talking over everyone, - I'm not. I am asking if officers with convictions should be kicked out. I am also asking if intelligence on prospective & serving officer be used too. In this case, someone like Couzens would have been suspended ages ago if there was intel suggesting that he was flasher and was known as 'the rapist' - this should have been enough to suspend him at least shouldn't it? He's not convicted of flashing yet, but if there is intel there....?

MangyInseam
20 years ago you wouldn't have had harassment or stalking laws and i don't think mal comms was in place either (I might be wrong)

Also a lot of jobs were just written off 20 years ago and society weren't happy with 'lazy policing'. DV incidents just being written off when offences were there. So recently changes like NCRS tightened things up to stop this from happening.

the Tl;dr is, as always "love the sound of my own voice, no questions actually answered"

Innit it weird how they patrol this thread but are completely invisible on the Gwent Police thread.

Strange.

AlisonDonut
So you're inviting me onto another thread.
OK - don't complain when I post on it then

Brefugee
And yet you don't answer any of mine

Strange

stillvicarinatutu there's nothing shameful about it, completely understandable. I'm sorry.

stillvicarinatutu
I've been to rapes and always believed the victim , but there really is a barrier - the CPS really seem determined not to prosecute. I'm reading the other thread now . It sums up why I didn't report my incident . And I was already in the police by then and I still wouldn't report it .

I think CPS is one of the main barriers in getting cases to court. Their threshold seems to be much too high and their constant bombarding with action plan after action plan for really minor things which adds nothing to the evidential line.

Felix

Do your call handlers write off at source though because yesterday I found a wealth of incidents in my active queue that were not crimes , no offences at all, some not even a police matter - all still had incidents created and passed to dispatch .

I am barred from call handling because I apparently didn't create incidents - even when there was no crime . I was hauled into the office and told I wasn't to call handle anymore .
So the right hand is constantly working against the left hand - and being in the control room I see it .
Another thing I discovered today was in my old response shift there is now not one officer with more than 4 years service. No experience.I sometimes wonder when reading a sgts update on an incident if they can even remember the definitions in law - because I find myself - as a pic - constantly having to correct inaccurate updates on incidents , or a Sgt will say this is suitable for an appointment- and I read it and there's nothing in the incident that's a job - so why make an appointment? That just gives a complainant the expectation that an officer will attend and do what they want - I get sick
And tired of ringing complainants after all the calls from dispatch saying I'm so sorry we haven't attended yet - only for me to ring them after a week of the incident sitting there just to tell them there isn't an offence

Had a breach of RO yesterday- read the R O - no breach what do ever . RO said not to threaten violence - guy picks his kids up , says to ex "get out of my way " and social services told her to report a breach .

That's what we're up against here - I thought by going I to the control room I could stop that happening but I'm now not allowed to callhandle because I don t create incidents ! It's madness . It makes me so cross - if I had a swear jar on my desk I'd be in the Bahamas now .....

Felix125
Just Google- pride flag meme arrest
Can you manage that?

Similar where we are

Although a lot of our call takers are pretty good - often retired police that have come back in a civilian role and can get rid of a load of jobs at source - we do get the odd ones that filter through somehow - but those often get binned by comms dispatchers before they get dished out.

Our response shift is similar - i think there is only me and 2-3 others who have over 10 years service - the rest are younger. Most will ask us for advice as they go, so its a good team at the moment.

Felix125
You might want to watch this discussion as well.

Another example of these officers not knowing the definition of law .

Watched that with interest.