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.

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

It should absolutely be a part of their employment records and remain.

My issue with you @Felix125 is you are obviously extremely annoyed about the view taken of the Police but in my opinion you are directing your anger at the wrong target - the ones who hold that view and not the ones responsible for causing that view to be held. In your shoes I would be incandescent with those police officers and forces that have behaved in ways that have resulted in this view being held. I know @stillvicarinatutu has spoken out and challenged within the force she works for the issues raised on the various threads on here, what have you done?

Surely all those good police officers, as you count yourself to be, should stand up and make your voices heard as to the current state of the public perception of the police - why it is happening? Whether that be recruitment processes, disciplinary processes, an inbuilt culture - whatever, you are all being tainted.

@Felix125 do you see the problem with suggesting that the police - an institutionally misogynistic organisation - are the right people to sort out misogyny (and worse) within the police?

If not, what do you think the answer is?

Or are you seriously suggesting misogyny is not a cultural problem within the police?

@Justasmallgless - I think WeAreFairCop shared it. Manchester police didn't create it, but they shared it. Can't find it now, but it's definitely real as FairCop wouldn't make it up.

I
For one will
Welcome the decision to stop recording non crime hate incidents.

It has never ever sat well with me that someone who has committed no crime is labelled a "suspect" on our system because of a view or an opinion.

The issue has been that the government has insisted these incidents be recorded and waved NCRS crime recordable statistics in our faces . I'm so so
Glad Harry millar challenged it and won . It's ridiculous. Why are we keeping data on people who committed nothing but to have an opinion?
I have an opinion! I'm not a
Criminal . The police are being misused. And that annoys me and what annoys me more is the way we just accept it and follow the herd . I'm sure to be a
Good police
Officer we need an investigative mind set . But only when it suits .

Do you know what really annoys me is I've refused before now to record anything on some of these issues and the bean pushers in audit and governance have sent it back insisting I create an investigation. And then - low and behold - when I quote the actual letter of the law they go "ok then "

How many non crimes are being created needlessly?

I used to home in the 90s about political correctness gone mad and watch Ben Elton and take the piss but seriously- this IS political correctness gone mad . When servants of the crown are used in this way - this isn't what I signed up for .

I used to home in the 90s about political correctness gone mad and watch Ben Elton and take the piss but seriously- this IS political correctness gone mad . When servants of the crown are used in this way - this isn't what I signed up for.

No, it's not what you signed up for and it's not what the public want either, it must frustrate the merry hell out of you.

vestofabsurdity

I cannot even begin to tell you . I have high blood pressure now and I swear it's this job . It gives me the rage on so many levels . I aren't a compliant type and I question decisions often - and I do refuse to do anything I believe is not lawful so I am very often on the naughty step. It is incredibly stressful.

Home should be "moan " btw .

"Oi Sarge do you think we should crime this?"

"Oh definitely."

One-year-old children investigated by police over assault allegations

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11449209/One-year-old-children-investigated-allegations-assault-Cleveland-Norfolk.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

I don't understand this - the age of criminal responsibility is 10 . This is beyond a joke

Ok Reading i do get it.

Firstly - WHO THE FUCK is reporting this to the police????

Secondly - we are duty bound to RECORD all assaults reported no matter the circs . So I ask you - who is reporting a baby for assault ?

They are not investigated at all.
NO ONE UNDER 10 years of age is investigated

But according to the government the stats have to be recorded!

Please please if you find this ridiculous- do something.

Do you genuinely think the police want to record an assault by a baby ?

Me - I know what I would do but there are cops who do not know how to negate a crime.

This is a
Classic case of 1) blami g the police for a
Government decision and 2) misinformation. No
Child under 10 will ever be investigated.

And maybe the blame for this piece of priceless absolute shite lied with those who would actually pick the phone up to report that a CHILD OR BABY HAS ASSAULTED THEM !

these are the kind of fuckwits the police deal with daily .

No wonder I have high blood pressure.

And then - The police the blame ! It's laughable.

*lies with not lied

We are told , that for the statistics- ALL assaults must be recorded even if the perpetrator is beneath the age of criminal responsibility.

They won't be investigated because what would be the point in that ?

But according to government the statistics MUST be recorded.

You're definitely blaming the wrong organisation on that one .

We find this as laughable , abhorrent, ridiculous, and stupid as you would.

I do not do it . But now - if someone reports an assault- no matter the age of the person involved- the government says it must be recorded.

Pathetic. Yes . I agree .

Pathetic. Yes . I agree

Beyond pathetic completely and utterly ludicrous, stupid and an utter waste of time and money.

Yes yes and yes

But I have to say again

For us to have to record it
Someone has to report it !

WHO is bothering to pick up the phone and ring 101 or 999 to say a baby assaulted them ?

I lay the blame at their door I'm afraid.

It does say the kind of people we are dealing with mostly .

You as a "normal thinking" person don't get it . But the people we deal with 90% of the time are not normal thinking people.

This is the bloody battle we as a police service are up against. You have no idea !

Some people actually do pick up a phone to report a CHILD had assaulted them . Often the parents . I wonder what they'd like us as police to do ?

Society has changed . The people that the majority of the time ring 101 or 999 are people who you will never ever come across in the course of normal life .

We deal with the abnormal more often than not .

I've had a parent ring and answered an immediate response for an 8 year old kicking off !

You as a normal parent would deal with that as any normal parent would - buy some parents ring the police to deal with their errant offspring. At 8 . I mean what the hell are we meant to do ?

I mean if
Someone rings 999 saying they're 8 year old is smashing the house up - what are we supposed to do ?

Say sorry- deal with it ?
We sometimes try that - it doesn't work .
So we end up in blues and twos to an 8 year old trashing a house .

They're beneath the age of criminal responsibility so we have absolutely zero power to do anything except refer to
Social services. Who generally already know and are involved.

But if when we get there mum says they've kicked them and smashed the tv- we have to record it - for crime stats . We can't prosecute of course .

But this is happening more and more - parents do not have control of their small children. And they ring the police . And they get told to ring the police from social services and ambulance.

It's a head fuck alright . I have kids of 30 and 25 (one of whom is autistic) and if I'd ever had to ring police to parent for me I'd have bloody died with embarrassment.

But now - this is a reality . It happening daily .

thedancingbear
The point is we are trying to get rid of & not to employ from the start - anyone with misogynistic, racial, religious intolerance views etc. Whether that's done by the police or we set up a stand alone independent organisation which does it.

But should we use just their past criminal convictions only or should we use intelligence gathered on them from various sources which would fall into a NCHI.

For example - outside of work I may be involved with a misogynistic or racial Whatsapp group with my mates who I play football with. All of us are different professions (teachers, engineers etc). A member of the public reports the group to the police, but as it does not amount to a crime it won't be recorded as it will be a NCHI only.

So this group will carry on unhindered, which I don't think is right.

Justasmallgless
Standards of behaviour should be higher - i agree. And Whatsapp groups should be investigated - but as the above example shows - if there is no crime associated with it - it won't be recorded anywhere. This can't be right.

And it won't only be in the police. It would also cover professions like teaching, nursing, elderly care etc etc

My stance is that the police should be better vetted from the start and continued to be vetted during employment. This will included prosecutions for any offences and also intelligence and NCHI recorded against the individual officer.

I would also add that our force doesn't have any rainbow cars, lanyards or similar. We don't wear poppies, charity pin badges etc

For example - outside of work I may be involved with a misogynistic or racial Whatsapp group with my mates who I play football with. All of us are different professions (teachers, engineers etc). A member of the public reports the group to the police, but as it does not amount to a crime it won't be recorded as it will be a NCHI only.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/20/man-admits-posting-offensive-video-of-grenfell-tower-model-on-bonfire
Depends on what's shared within the group, surely.
Do people (be they engineers, teachers, police or property developers)normally get suspended sentences for non crimes?

No - but they can be disciplined or dismissed for such things if they fall into a category of gross misconduct.

That's my query - should they be used to dismiss people from a job if they are NCHI only

VestofAbsurdity
I am angry at both sides of it - the ones who hold that view and not the ones responsible for causing that view to be held. That's why i am wanting as many ways as possible to remove them from the force and not hide behind the NCHI.

And i do stand up and make my voice heard - I will argue and take to task anyone, no matter what rank, I think is detrimental to the force.

As I said, our force is pretty good with things - no rainbow things, no pin badges, no supporting specific charities over others etc

Felix and/or Vicar:

In this video the police officer says Kelly Jay is being invited to a voluntary interview, but if she doesn't attend she will be arrested. Is that correct?

My experience of someone attending voluntary interview (different circumstances) absolutely was told that they would be arrested if they didn't attend.
It's not an unusual move afaik.

What is the 'hate crime' she's been accused of, too, I don't recognise that as a crime?

'the crime is use of words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation'