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.

She's given the aggravating factor but not mentioned a crime? Am I misunderstanding?

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

It's a public order offence I think, if you Google the phrase that the officer said.

Thanks, Roses.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard

'Incitement to Hatred on the grounds of Race, Religion or Sexual Orientation

Parts III and 3A of the Act create offences of inciting hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

Refer to CPS Legal Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Racist and Religious Crime, and Homophobic, Biphobic and Transphobic Hate Crime.

Proceedings for any of these offences may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General.
Where a case alleging incitement to hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation is referred to Area, Area must prepare a report for SCCTD so that SCCTD and Area can have an informed discussion on where the responsibility for the case should lie.'

Mmm, have they got the Attorney General's consent I wonder?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4668425-sex-matters-petition

just in case some of you have missed this petition, it’s about clarifying the meanings of sex and gender in law. It was started by Maya Forstater and is a government petition. Please sign and forward, I’ve forwarded it to friends and been heartened by the response.

It's grotesque coercion and any attempt to downplay that shows the Stazi-like nature of the modern British Bobby.

Arrest her or don't. The word games are peverse.

Oh and to add something substantive to the thread

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/21/only-10-met-police-officers-out-of-412-investigated-over-alleged-online-abuse-have-been-fired

This is horrific. Silencing women through institutional misogyny.

Yes. Option of voluntary interview offered if there are no grounds for arrest. Failure to attend a voluntary may then provide grounds as the suspect’s account needs to be obtained.
So yes, there isn't really an option but at least with a voluntary you can arrange it a convenient time, with solicitor of your choice and you aren’t detained.

Grounds for arrest
To ascertain a person’s name or address. This would be considered an arrest necessity if the police had reason to believe they were being given false information.
To prevent physical harm. This includes harm to the person being arrested, whether from others or from themselves.
To prevent loss of or damage to property. This would particularly apply if the individual has a history of theft or criminal damage, for instance.
To prevent an offence against public decency. This only applies if members of the public are going about their business nearby and cannot reasonably avoid the individual.
If there is an unlawful obstruction to the highway. In this case, there should be some indication that the obstruction will continue or be repeated without an arrest.
To protect a child or a vulnerable person. This includes both the physical and mental wellbeing of the person.
To prevent the investigation of an offence or the prosecution of the suspect being hindered. For instance, if there was reason to believe the individual would not attend court following a summons, this would suggest an arrest necessity.

Officers must consider alternatives to arrest if practicable.

It’s under PACE code G.

Thanks Flapjack

I can understand the logic of the second part of your post but I don't follow the logic of the first part.

If there aren't sufficient grounds for arrest and a suspect is not obliged to answer any police questions or give their account of events then how does a voluntary interview help the police progress an investigation?

KJK goes for an interview and gives a prepared statement or declines to provide answers to any questions, then what? If they didn't have enough evidence to give grounds for arrest before the interview and the interview provides no new information presumably they can't charge her.

The voluntary interview is just an attempt at coercing people to attend and potentially incriminate themselves. Very boring, law abiding middle aged women like myself would have no idea about this tactic if the police hadn't chosen to become the rainbow stasi intent on intimidating women with opinions.

Do you get a duty solicitor if its a voluntary interview?

@FOJN
KJK’s account will be a key part of the investigation. Grounds for arrest is the necessity to arrest. There is no need to arrest KJK at this stage. They know who she is and where she lives, searches do not need to be completed to seize evidence, bail conditions are not necessary etc.
KJK has to be given the opportunity to put her version forward. This is an allegation. The police have no idea what is the truth at this stage. She can choose to use the opportunity at interview or not. She may raise a plausible defence.
It is standard procedure and the office is acting well within the law.
Im an ardent KJK supporter but if an allegation is made police will need to follow it through.

Duty or one of your choosing.

ScreamingMeMe & NewBootsAndRanty & FOJN
Any interview is designed to get that persons side of the event and to ask them about the allegation made against them.

Person A assaults person B. Person A gets arrested and Person B provides a statement with some CCTV.

Person A is arrested as there are sufficient grounds in this example (on going incident and the victim is at risk). Person A is interviewed to get their account (did you do it or not). if you didn't do it, how do you explain these injuries or explain this CCTV footage. Person A can elect to answer, or go 'no reply'

Because of the wording of the caution (it will harm your defence.......) - if they are asked similar questions at court but given a different answer - the court can draw an inference from it - such as if they go no reply, when they go to court, the court can draw an inference as to why they didn't answer that question when they got interviewed by police.

A voluntary interview is just that - there is no necessity to arrest them so they can be vol interviewed. They are not under arrest and they are told they are free to leave at any point. So, they can up and walk out at the start.

They can't then be arrested - as it will not be a vol interview. Besides which, they have been told they are free to leave at any point. If they do this, they are effectively waving their right to be interviewed. The case file will just proceed as normal to the court without the interview of person A

In essence for a vol interview - I can't say:
"This is a voluntary interview and you're free to leave at any point - but if you do try an leave I will arrest you"
As it won't be a voluntary interview

If you simply refuse to attend for a vol interview, it can be used as ground for arrest. This would depend on the offence, the reason why they are avoiding police, are they on the run, the custody sergeant etc. If they don't turn up for an interview, what is the prospect that they won't turn up at court?

ArabellaScott
Yes - you will need a primary offence with the aggravating factor attached to it.
Racially aggravated common assault for example

This one is quite easy as not only is it all on video, it has been dissected on video several times.

Posie didn't assault anyone so stop with this comparison to actual crimes.

Felix would you not just watch the videos or are you taught to compare non crimes to actual crimes these days to infer things that didn't actually happen in order to incriminate the non crime non offender?

On the voluntary interview.
An interview under caution ( voluntary or not ) is evidence.
Evidence can be used against you in a court of law.
Weither or not you give a voluntary interview or not the police can arrest you. The more evidence they have collected before your arrest the better for the police not you.
If you are arrested the police can take your fingerprints and DNA without your consent. They can take blood and urine samples without your consent but require the permission of a senior police officer to do so. These are meant to be destroyed if you are not guilty but the police really really like to hang onto them, so often they don't.
This video is based on American law but a lot of the principals and basic ideas hold true. Everyone should watch this video, it may really help you one day, especially with the politicalization of some UK police forces.

Noted that the PC stated that the complaint was received in October so several weeks ago, can KJK respond to the request for a voluntary interview in a similar timeframe?

If there aren't sufficient grounds for arrest and a suspect is not obliged to answer any police questions or give their account of events then how does a voluntary interview help the police progress an investigation?

what i don't understand here is that if there aren't enough grounds to arrest, they can be invited to a voluntary interview. So far so good. They can have legal representation, all good (if this is made clear). But if they say "nope" for whatever reason - that is grounds to arrest them for something that there aren't enough grounds to arrest them for in the first place?

I find that quite baffling, tbh.

@Brefugee
It's a no-lose fishing expedition by the police. If the vol interview gives them nothing they are no worse off than they were before. If it gives them anything they have more evidence than they had before the vol intervew.

Yes - you will need a primary offence with the aggravating factor attached to it.

Thanks, Felix. But it seems the PC mentioned the 'aggravating factor' without mentioning the primary offence - it's a public order offense apparently, but which one? I'm finding it hard to work out what the name of the actual specific crime/offence is.

It's a no-lose fishing expedition by the police. If the vol interview gives them nothing they are no worse off than they were before. If it gives them anything they have more evidence than they had before the vol intervew.

my question is about why they can't arrest because no grounds, but refusing a non-compulsory interview is suddenly all the evidence they need. Fishing expeditions are clear, and frankly i don't blame the police (under some circs) for doing that.

In other words, is declining a voluntary interview an arrestable offence in itself?

Has echoes of this case. KJK will probably sue them if they actually arrest her. I doubt they will - it's simple harassment.

A Christian street preacher has won a claim against West Yorkshire Police after being arrested over an altercation in Huddersfield town centre.

David McConnell commenced legal action against the force after being arrested and held for about six hours in December 2019 when a call was made to the police complaining that he was "preaching on gay rights and abortion".

www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/huddersfield-christian-street-preacher-arrested-20931752

It's not a crime with an aggravating factor of hate that's being quoted, it's a public order offence:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/3A/crossheading/acts-intended-to-stir-up-religious-hatred

Section 29B of the Public Order Act 1986. It's an offence in itself, not an aggravating factor of another crime. It's one of the crimes that Andrew Dymock was found guilty of in 2021, as an example.