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.

This sums up my confusion. No one has written anything here that I don't understand but I don't know how anyone can call this interview voluntary when there is a chance you may be arrested for not attending.

Either the police have sufficient evidence of a crime to make an arrest or they don't, inviting a suspect, under threat of arrest, to supply them with the evidence they don't have is bullshit.

There is plenty of video evidence of KJK's views on line and the entire Brighton event was live streamed by multiple people. KJK was wearing a body cam that day. Perhaps the police could actually use this to determine if the complaint has merit before they start using intimidation tactics.

IIRC there was a lot of shouting and shenanegins from the TRAs which was misogynistic? has anyone tried contacting the police about that?

Several of the men there were arrested.

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.

Very interesting. Sounds like the complainants completely set him up.

Isn't "stirring up hatred" on the grounds of racism or sexual orientation (unlike trans identity) a crime in and of itself? Also you can use "malicious communications" or "harassment" to cover anything online, in public or broadcast for the purpose of the "hate crime", see Kate Scottow etc.

I remember a few people on Twitter (think Glinner was one of them) getting a visit from the police because of dubious allegations of homophobic hate crime rather than transphobic.

Changes to the Public Order Act detailed here, this makes "stirring up hatred" an offence:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/3A

Brefugee
If there aren't enough grounds to arrest - then in order to get their account, they can be offered an opportunity to be vol interviewed. This is to get their side of the story. Otherwise, we only have the complainants side of the story and nothing against it. Therefore the person would be charged or summonsed to court.

if they are interviewed - they may give an account which means there is no need for a court case. Their account maybe corroborated for example.

They can go 'no reply' - but if they are asked similar questions at court as to what they asked in interview, the court then can draw an inference. Basically why have you give a response now but not when you were interviewed.

There must be an offence there in the first place though - whether criminal (theft, burglary) or another offence that's not a crime (drink drive etc)

To arrest someone, you must have a necessity to do that (ongoing violent incident, fear for a persons safety etc). If they refuse a vol interview - you're still going to need a necessity to effect an arrest.

At the end of the day, you tell them at the start of a vol interview that you can leave at any point - you can't then arrest them. It won't be a vol interview then would it.

If you simply don't turn up for a pre-arranged vol interview, you can go down the lines of saying that a person is evading the judicial process and is a 'flight risk'.

So if you have a DV assault where A assaults B. You ask A to attend for a vol interview but they don't turn up. We can't just leave it at that. We have to make some attempts to get their account - otherwise do we just tell B that we tried to interview them, but as they didn't turn up there is nothing we can do.

If A does turn up but refuses their opportunity to be interviewed or leaves at the start of the interview - then we can't use the 'evading the judicial process' line to arrest, because they've fulfilled the request by attending for the interview. They have exercised their right to leave. So the case file will be processed to court with only B's account and nothing to counter it.

Hope this helps

AlisonDonut
I never said Possie assaulted anyone have I?
The example I used was to answer a post from another poster

The offence is under the public order act which is being investigated here. Its classed as a crime - so I'm not sure where you are going with this non-crime, non-offender line?

I'm sorry but I very strongly disagree with pretty much everything you said here.
The purpose of any interview under caution is to gather evidence. The idea of telling the other side of the story is exactly what the police rely on to gather evidence against a suspect. To undergo a voluntary interview under caution without legal assistance is only ever going to hurt the person being interviewed.
The fact that it is a voluntary interview that you can withdraw from at any time does not change the police's ability to arrest you at any time. They could even arrest you during the interview if you give them sufficient evidence under caution that they think will stick. If you stop the interview they can arrest you and interview you again under arrest.
Saying that because you attend a voluntary interview that the police can't arrest you is very very bad advice for anyone in such a situation.
The idea that one side of story will be sufficient on it's own to go to court and a person will lose because they didn't talk to to the police at a voluntary interview is the very worst way to think of the situation that I can imagine. I can think of no better way to get into legal trouble quicker in the hypothetical situation you describe. Anyone in any situation like this should seek legal advice and representation immediately.
In the very long shot hope of getting a proper legal professional to express just how bad an idea this is.
@DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter

The rationale for the voluntary interview seems to be:

We don't have enough evidence to arrest you and charge you with a crime.
We're inviting you to voluntarily attend an interview to supply us with evidence to arrest and charge you.
If you don't attend voluntarily well arrest you anyway even though we don't have sufficient evidence to arrest you and charge you for a crime.

Really I have no patience with this maddening, illogical, bullshit. Its no wonder the police have been so easily rainbow washed if they this this kind of behaviour is reasonable and logical.

lechiffre55

Thank you, your contributions are making much more sense to me.

This is pretty much spot on.
They won't always arrest you if you cut short a voluntary interview. What I'm trying to make clear is that they have the power to do so if they want to.
There's a problem for the police that the voluntary interview solves. Once arrested you have to be charged within 24 hours or released. ( There are exceptions to this 24 hour rule, but no one reading this form is likely to fall into that - I hope )
So pretend you are a policeman. You invite someone in for a voluntary interview. Because they are not under arrest that 24 hour clock is not ticking. You have all the time in the world to keep investigating. The suspect says something in the interview, you have all the time in the world to investigate it and arrest them whenever you are ready.
If the police decide they really want to interview you and you don't agree to the voluntary interview, they can arrest you and interview you, but now they have a problem. At the point of arrest a 24 hour clock started ticking down. They have to now get their skates on and charge you before the clock runs out. They may have to do all sorts of investigations that take time in order to gather enough evidence to charge you, but that 24 countdown is hanging over their head.
Can you see now why the voluntary interview works in their favour? They get unlimited time as well as people who think "it will be ok, they just want to hear my side of the story".
KJK knows exactly what she's up to, and I can't wait to watch the woke stazi try and wriggle out of this one. But for the rest of us get legal advice as soon as possible.

I've had the biggest row today because of some bullshit batshit NCRS standard and I can't describe how ludicrous it was but just to say
There are 2 ways to interview someone if accused of an offence- one is pace 12 -arrest and interview the other is pace 9 and that's a voluntary interview. Both achieve the same aim - to get the other side of the story and under caution, gather evidence by questioning. If you've done nothing then there will be no evidence and I would always urge legal advice as it's a right under both pace 9 and pace 12 . Free and independent legal advice . It's a right under pace. Sometimes people who've done something wrong want to tell you all about it , and sometimes they don't , and sometimes they say "no comment " but I would only ever urge that in response to legal advice from a solicitor. Basically then the onus is on the police to prove the offence - or disprove it as the case may be - we are supposed to conduct a full 360 degree investigation- police are simply evidence gatherers- not judge and jury and should be impartial. (And yes sometimes that's difficult if you're dealing with someone you feel sorry for or someone who has done something heinous. But that's the job as it should be .

I've been telling my inspector and Sgt today about the harry miller case and asked if anything has filtered down yet .

Some of the government crime recording standards are truly batshit. The government are dictating that standard- and I've dealt with something today that's annoyed me so much I'm wondering what the hell we are coming to . The government have dictated that all offences be recorded even if it's a child beneath the age of criminal responsibility. So today I was told of a case whereby a child of 3 has been recorded as a "suspect " for a criminal damage. It's going to take someone to sue - because if that were my child named on a police system as a suspect at 3 I would not be held responsible for what I would do - and these standards are from the home office .

Sometimes these standards do check an officers rationale for closing a job - so if they've stretched credibility on a write off for instance - it's found out - it's audited , and if necessary those lazy or bad officers are referred to police complaints and discipline. So it's a double edged sword but I feel like we have lost all sense of reason and common sense and im dismayed .

I am continually raising these things to supervision. I've just about had enough tbh . The standards im seeing from officers , particularly younger newer recruits I'd pretty embarrassing. I've never been ashamed of my job - until now . I'd never tell anyone in rl what I do . I used to be proud to be a serving officer in the worlds best police service . Now im embarrassed.

The three people you referred to were talking about Posie.

The reason I talk about a non crime non offender is that the police officer couldn't tell her what she had actually done so she isn't an offender and no crime has been committed that we or indeed the police know about. She was stood next to officers most of the day. And it wasn't assault so no need to infer that it was by using that example. It's just another slight of hand.

@stillvicarinatutu So today I was told of a case whereby a child of 3 has...
Hang on, you said yesterday that the two children aged 1 would not be investigated as they were below the legal age of criminal responsibility after a report came out saying that they had.

Felix, you see i really know you just like wittering on not actually answering the questions.
My very very simple question was this: if you don't have grounds to arrest someone you can't arrest them. So you invite them on a fishing trip, which is voluntary. And they can say no.

But if they say no you threaten them with arrest. WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS? We already established you don't have grounds to arrest them. The invitation is voluntary. Why do they then get threatened with arrest? It is just bully boy tactics. Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

Presumably the arrest for not turning up to this fake voluntary interview is that the Stonewall captured police are then free to go on a fishing expedition poring over all KJK's devices and home in a search for anything they can find to persecute her with. They can then screw up her business (and presumably anyone who appears in her emails / contacts etc)?

The arrest can be deemed necessary if it is believed a suspect for a crime will not turn up to be interviewed voluntarily.

Where "mens rea" is required to prove a crime, it will always be necessary to allow a suspect the opportunity to answer questions, but also allow the police the opportunity to ask questions. There have been cases where suspects have been charged and gone to court saying well the police didn't ask me this, I would have told them about it.

People always used to be arrested for a suspected crime but various pieces of legislation came in most notably changes to bail, which reduced the powers of the police in relation to pre-charge bail .this used to be a specific offence for failing to comply with bail conditions and also with it came a presumption that bail would not be applied.

This led to a status of released under investigation, which had little governance and worse outcomes for both victim and suspect. There was guidance about using voluntary attendance where possible rather than arrest.

This has actually had an adverse impact on protecting DA and sexual violence victims and has now been reversed since 28/10/22.

Now onto KJK - I can only assume the offence is s3A public order act which added stirring up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation.

How ever there is a protection of freedom of expression contained within the legislation

Alison
They are not investigated because they are under the age of criminal responsibility but the "crime" still has to be recorded statistically. You can have a crime and not investigate it for various reasons such as the suspect lacks capacity to understand what they're doing (dementia for example - I've attended a murder committed by a late stage dementia patient who had absolutely no idea what they'd done ) but we still have to record the murder .

But I simply cannot believe that we are being asked to record jobs (not investigate them ) where toddlers are the bloody suspect . It's bean pushing bollocks to me .

police are simply evidence gatherers- not judge and jury and should be impartial. (And yes sometimes that's difficult if you're dealing with someone you feel sorry for or someone who has done something heinous. But that's the job as it should be .

Thank you for that. I see lots of social media posts from police with emotive language, crowing about how they've caught a criminal or suchlike, and my immediate response is that they've not yet been tried! It's in really poor taste and I think it's counter to the whole spirit of the law.

AlisonDonut
She was told of the offence - which is a public order offence. So an offence has been reported by the reporting person which is being investigated.

Brefugee
Grounds for arrest and necessity for the arrest are two different things.
The grounds would be covered by what ever offences is being investigated. The necessity will have to be demonstrated by the cop who makes the arrest - prevent further offences, protect a vulnerable person, prevent the disappearance of the suspect etc etc

Its not a 'fishing trip' - they are going to be asked specific questions about the offence which is being investigated. You can either answer the questions or not. You can also be shown the CCTV etc. Otherwise you will just be presented with the evidence at court.

by interviewing, the person may not need to go to court if there is insufficient evidence to proceed any further after the interview - they may give a defence in interview which halts the investigation any further.

By not attending for a vol interview - the grounds are still there as the offence still exists which needs investigation. The necessity may be to prevent the person avoiding capture/justice, prevent their disappearance.

MrsOvertonsWindow
If its a vol interview - we have no powers to seize anything from her home.

If person B reports to police the person A has committed an offence against them. What do you want the police to do?

Person B is adamant that they have been a victim and is wanting action - provide a statement etc

How do you want the police to deal with person A?

She was told of the offence - which is a public order offence. So an offence has been reported by the reporting person which is being investigated.

It is getting to the stage now where people can report women out in public and instead of actually getting evidence of wrong doing, they call the women up and tell her she may be arrested and nobody knows what it is she did 'wrong'. Do women not have the right now to leave the house without permission in case someone reports her for a public order offence?

You'd think the police stood next to her all day would have noticed this publc order offence.

Still at least they don't just drag her out and stone her. Just invite her for a voluntary interview which if she refuses becomes an arrest.

Why not watch the footage and tell us what it is you think she might have done?

Maybe ask what it was she did, and say 'Someone says you did X, and we have the evidence on video so we will be arresting you'?

I mean, it is so vague nobody knows. Maybe watch the video and tell us what this mystery offence was? Or ask the officers stood next to her all day and ask them? Bit remiss to not notice it don't you think?

I mean they could say 'she was stood next to an officer all day and it is on video so send us the footage and we will look at it'?

It's the reason she wears a body cam, because she know that someone will do this.

By not attending for a vol interview - the grounds are still there as the offence still exists which needs investigation. The necessity may be to prevent the person avoiding capture/justice, prevent their disappearance.

still not grounds for arrest since you have the same evidence and reasons for arrest as before. I don't blame the police for trying but that is hugely moving the goalposts. If you want to arrest someone: get better evidence.