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.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-63688097

"One of the key lessons here for the force is to make sure that you free up police time so they can take domestic abuse seriously," she added.

Maybe stop dedicating so much time to MRA.

AlisonDonut
If its a non-crime, there won't be an arrest - because what would be the arrest for?

If you don't want NCHI recorded, that's fine. But can you not see the problem that people might slip through the gaps.

Do we just use recorded criminal offences against someone for a prospective employer to use - or should we also use intelligence gathered on someone?

For example Couzens cronies who had a misogynistic Whatsapp group - might not have been breaking any law, but the intelligence of what they are posting in the group should render their position in the police as null and void. Simplified example i know, but its just to get a point across

And should we use this in other professions too?

shall we present the men that are paedophiles that 'transition' and don't even have to declare their old identities - both men & women will be able to do this then.

TenPointsFromHufflepuff
You need to address the amount of safeguarding we have to do. Our response shift completely wiped out tonight by safeguarding issues. High risk missing from homes, hospital guards, mental health guards, crime scenes and cell watches - every officer tied up with no one free to divert to any incoming emergencies. And this is a regular occurrence 7 days a week.

That's where your problems lie

For example Couzens cronies who had a misogynistic Whatsapp group - might not have been breaking any law, but the intelligence of what they are posting in the group should render their position in the police as null and void.

Is anyone else having deja vu?

both men & women will be able to do this then.

yes. Why even bother to bring that up - what % of pedophiles do you imagine to be women? In what way is it a response to the point being made?

If its a non-crime, there won't be an arrest - because what would be the arrest for?

Are you saying Caroline Farrow was not arrested for not posting a meme which wasn't even a crime?

Greater Manchester Police showing their bias and using misogynistic language about feminists...

I do wonder what the police would do if a woman stood in front of them and said 'I'm a TERF' - would they kill her, beat her up, arrest her, or basically put her in a van and drive her to the Dales and throw her into a peat bog.

Baffling.

That's interesting. So GMP are saying no feminists are allowed in Manchester? We don't see statements like that very often from the police. When do they state confidently that no Labour supporters, vegetarians, or Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed in a certain geographical area?

Do we just use recorded criminal offences against someone for a prospective employer to use - or should we also use intelligence gathered on someone?

'intelligence' doesn't equal 'non-crimes' reported by anybody with no evidence required. That is more akin to 'gossip'.

AlisonDonut
Farrow was arrested for malicious communications & harassment.
Both of which are classified as crimes - so not a NCHI
Were going over and over the same thing and you're not listening or understanding.
Re-read the posts from earlier

I do wonder what the police would do if a woman stood in front of them and said 'I'm a TERF' - would they kill her, beat her up, arrest her, or basically put her in a van and drive her to the Dales and throw her into a peat bog.

None of the above i would suggest.

TastefulRainbowUnicorn
Is anyone else having deja vu?
Yes - me (see above and the previous pages)

ArabellaScott
I agree - shouldn't be posting this like this, we should be neutral
But I have said this earlier on with things like supporting charities, wearing poppies, rainbow cars etc.
Our force doesn't - so we must be doing something right where we are.

'intelligence' doesn't equal 'non-crimes' reported by anybody with no evidence required.
It has to be graded so that just one-word-gossip will not be as relevant as intelligence which is corroborated by something.
If you have a higher graded source or some sort of corroboration of that infomation, then I think it should be used.

I was arrested because of malicious communications - not harassment which is not an indictable offence.

The malicious communications involved other people’s posts on the KiwiFarms.

The ONLY reason I was arrested was to seize my IT.

Malicious Communications is in any event an highly subjective crime. I didn’t especially like the meme I was accused of making, it made me a bit uncomfortable, but other people have found it hilarious.

Should posting an allegedly offensive cartoon really pose a criminal offence necessitating arrest in front of one’s family?

I'd just like to drop in to point out that @Felix125 using Couzens' and his supporters' behaviour to support the idea we should trust the police with greater powers is perhaps the single crassest thing I've read on this site.

Sorry, as you were.

SnapeAlways
Mal comms is an either way offence, S2 harassment is summary only

Mal comms - Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive.
UK Public General Acts1988 c. 27 Section 1

This was my point in the earlier posts and its is subjective I agree with you - what is 'grossly offensive or indecent' to one person may not be to another.

If the reporting person says they believe it is - then you have the offence of mal comms made out in theory, based on the above definition.

So, from a police point of view, what does the call taker do - are they in a position to tell the reporting person that in the call taker's opinion, its not offensive and you should not be getting stressed over it - goodbye and end the call.

Or would they see it as an offence of mal comms is made out on the reporting call, so it will need investigating further?

Or do you have an interdependent person to judge what is grossly offensive or not? And if so, who would that be.

At present its the court which will ultimately decides (hence case law) - but this can only happen after the investigation has been completed and the case file is completed. And to complete this, you're going to need the IT equipment as its part of the evidence line. And to seize this, you can only use S32 or s18 of PACE following an arrest.

I'm not saying its right - but this is the law as it stands.

Were going over and over the same thing and you're not listening or understanding

Yes we are going over the same thing because you keep saying 'it won't happen' and we have evidence that it indeed, does happen.

I do wonder what the police would do if a woman stood in front of them and said 'I'm a TERF' - would they kill her, beat her up, arrest her, or basically put her in a van and drive her to the Dales and throw her into a peat bog. None of the above i would suggest

So what does 'No TERFs on our turf' mean then? You and your buddies are telling women they are not welcome in the public space so what are they going to do if one dares to walk around Manchester? It must mean something so what is it?

thedancingbear
So we just let these Whatsapp groups go unchecked then?

AlisonDonut
I have said its wrong and it shouldn't be posted: (see above)

I agree - shouldn't be posting this like this, we should be neutral
But I have said this earlier on with things like supporting charities, wearing poppies, rainbow cars etc.
Our force doesn't - so we must be doing something right where we are.

Yes we are going over the same thing because you keep saying 'it won't happen' and we have evidence that it indeed, does happen.

So what NCHI was she arrested for?

She was arrested for mal comms which is a recorded crime - not a NCHI

And then read the post above to SnapeAlways for further comments on it

For example Couzens cronies who had a misogynistic Whatsapp group - might not have been breaking any law, but the intelligence of what they are posting in the group should render their position in the police as null and void. Simplified example i know, but its just to get a point across

Some of Couzen's cronies in that group were charged with a crime, appeared in Court and were convicted so that blows your argument here out of the water. There was no requirement for an NCHI because they had actually committed a crime.

There are others in that group who may yet be charged with a crime, and there are certainly some who will and should be disciplined and dismissed for gross misconduct.

Yes, the bar for police officers should be set far higher than that for the general public and it's obvious as to why that should be.

Where did I say that?

VestofAbsurdity
That's why i said might not have been breaking any law

And if they have broken a law, then they have been rightly charged and convicted. I don't have an issue with this and any future convictions.

So, in this example, the others who in the group who don't get charged with a crime - should intelligence on them still remain and be used against them? After all these may fall into the category of a NCHI

I think it should be used against them. And i think it should be the same in other professions too. So, if a similar group existed in the teaching profession for example.

thedancingbear
You're implying that I am crass for suggesting that we give the police greater powers to get rid of Couzens and his supporters due to their behaviour on social media (Wharsapp etc)

You appear do disagree with this.

So I am asking do these groups go unchecked then?

I think they need to be challenged, yes. But suggesting that you are the right people to deal with this, given you share the misogynistic attitudes of Couzens and his mates (as a group; I don't know your own views, though I have suspicions) is, as I say, crass.

When was this posted @Charley50 ? Just had a quick look and can't see it on there

Utterly appalled at this

Am also baffled at your stance @Felix125 as that's the whole point of intelligence??
NCHI have been used inappropriately for years and the fact that sexism and misogyny doesn't count as hate crimes is beyond a joke

@AlisonDonut twitter.com/womanchestermmn/status/1557389943076491264?s=46&t=-uT2-71dt8uytvkl0UTlvQ

Hope this reassures somewhat
There are dialogues ongoing at present

But it does happen Felix
As you should rightly know.

Standards of behaviour are rightly expected to be higher and I would expect an investigation into WhatsApp messages where there was any evidence of misogyny and sexism by professional standards .

NCHI would not be created for this so am not sure where you are going with it.

Just seen an article that two children aged one year old were investigated by police last year.