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.

me? I will never voluntary have any contact with the police. Not ever.

You carry on with your disingenuous stuff though. It just cements my view that the police are not fit for purpose.

If there is no necessity to arrest someone - how do you want the police to proceed then.

Here's a thought - fuck off and do some real police work?

And stop harassing women for literally nothing.

There was a police officer STOOD NEXT TO HER ALL FUCKING DAY. If her behaviour was a public offence order would this person not have noticed at the time?

So - I ask again - at what point do we ignore a serial complainer?
Go back to a bout page 3 or 4 where it was discussed, as I never got at answer to it then.

You do ignore them. You ignore the one who complains about CF all the time. The one who complains about Femme Loves (same chap, i think) all the fuckers who are at KJK constantly. It is relentless. You followed up on a report of maliciious complainant and FINED THE WOMAN WHO WAS COMPLAINING LIGITIMATELY ABOUT HER STALKER AND WAS THEN KILLED BY HIM.

How about you read and inwardly digest. Then you and your police buddies can try to work out why women don't trust you.

I don't know what you want me to say to this. One complaint? hmm. note it down. 2 complaints? joined up thinking adds them to the same file. 3 complaints? are you actually checking into the complaints? does your action depend if the complainer has their reproductive organs on the inside or the outside (my first paragraph suggests so). 4 complaints? are you starting to looking into the background and relationship between the complainer and the person they are complaining about? 5? 6? Do you want me to do your bloody job for you?

AlisonDonut
So you can guarantee that they were stood there 100% of the day. They were never distracted by anything else and they were watching her all the time?

That's great - then perhaps she can mention that in her interview.

But perhaps the OIC has statements from the two police officer already which might not say they were stood there 100% time.

This might match up with what the reporting person is saying

Real police work - so we can just ignore allegations of public order offences then? Not investigate them at all - just write them off at the at the call taker stage? Who makes that decision then?

Brefugee
me? I will never voluntary have any contact with the police. Not ever.

That's fine - so someone could make an allegation against you - and you would be happy to just receive a summons to court

Brefugee
Ah great - so after 4 complaints which don't result in a charge - we just ignore the call

So DV victims - so after the 4th time it doesn't result in a charge - just ignore.

Great - can't see a problem there!!

Wonder if we can do this was serial suicidal missing from homes - after the 4th call - just ignore them

Missing children from care homes - after the 4th call - there on their own!

High risk DV partners

Ah great - so after 4 complaints which don't result in a charge - we just ignore the call

are you being deliberately ob-fucking-tuse? I want you to collate the information that shows that someone is making falsely malicious complaints about someone. Jesus. I don't believe your in the Police. You are really too bloody bad at reading comprehension.

That's fine - so someone could make an allegation against you - and you would be happy to just receive a summons to court

if an allegation is made against me, i will engage a lawyer. i will not have any voluntary, and certainly no unaccompanied, engagements with the police. If it ends in court, I'll take my chances. But since I'm not a woman with a megaphone I'll probably be fine. If someone is making consistent malicious and untrue allegations about me and the plods do nothing? I will take action against them.

Listen. If you don't understand what i'm saying, just ask. Really it is simpler all round.

@Felix125

didn't you read this??????

I don't know what you want me to say to this. One complaint? hmm. note it down. 2 complaints? joined up thinking adds them to the same file. 3 complaints? are you actually checking into the complaints? does your action depend if the complainer has their reproductive organs on the inside or the outside (my first paragraph suggests so). 4 complaints? are you starting to looking into the background and relationship between the complainer and the person they are complaining about? 5? 6? Do you want me to do your bloody job for you?

Brefugee
No - I really don't understand what you are saying at all

An allegation is made against someone - doesn't matter what it is from littering to murder. We gather evidence to support or negate the crime. part of that is the account of the both people involved.

If its one word against another with no other evidence (which a lot of crimes are) what do you want the police to do?

Just go on the word of the reporting person?
If they are alleged as a serial complainer - ignore them?

This has to be the same for all offences to, so a serial victim of DV, do we just ignore them if non of their previous allegations have resulted in a prosecution?

Or do we take each compliant on its own merits and investigate?

And if its one word against another - how are you going to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) its a malicious complaint? The evidence against will be exactly the same as the evidence for

If you think the system will be better to just summons people straight to court and get rid of voluntary interviews - fine. But it will tie the courts up beyond beleif. And cases could have been finalised a lot earlier with the suspects account

In small words.

If someone makes a complaint make a note on file.
If that same person makes a similar complaint against the same person make a note on file.
If that same person makes a similar complaint against the same person make a note on file.
If that same person makes a similar complaint against the same person make a note on file.
If that same person makes a similar complaint against the same person make a note on file.
If that same person makes a similar complaint against the same person make a note on file.
If that same person makes a similar complaint against the same person make a note on file.
If that same person makes a similar complaint against the same person make a note on file.

now look. It's a big fat file. Why are you just putting notes on files and not a) investigating the complaint b) investigating the complainer c) investigating why they are doing this

is that easier to undrstand?

Just go on the word of the reporting person?
If they are alleged as a serial complainer - ignore them?

that whole post really. just shows you are here writing and writing (the equivalent i guess of liking the sound of your own voice?) and completely ignoring the things people have been writing.

We
Want
You
To
Investigate

As an example. The police must, by now, know a bit of the background to KJK and the events and the Terfs and the TRAs, right? Right? I mean it's hard to miss it, what with all the publicity and shouting and police presence.

So why, when the complaint is made don't you just, oh i don't know, look at CCTV, your own bodycams, YouTube? You can do all that from the safety of your own desk with tea and doughnuts on tap.

I'm starting to suspect Felix125 is part of the 'defund the police' movement.

So DV victims - so after the 4th time it doesn't result in a charge - just ignore

whats the difference between a DV victim being repeatedly assaulted by her husband, and a psychopathic creep harassing women he doesn’t know by repeatedly complaining to the police about how their words online have hurt his feelings?

according to Felix the policeman, none at all.

It all boils down to 'ignoring' people who can say anything rather than getting on with dealing with difficult stuff. [AKA their actual job].

I'm going to suggest that a woman who staged an event, where she was accompanied by an officer, was surrounded by other officers, was on video the whole time, has her own body cam footage, has multiple videos available on you tube, has police body cam footage - as probably the MOST evidenced event in Brighton history and if evidence for an arrest cannot be found amongst all that, a voluntary interview is probably not going to be worth it. To anyone.

At some point the police have to say 'no' to these people. Felix on the other hand will be running round the country voluntarily interviewing everyone hoping they hand them some 'evidence' that they can use to find a crime to fit. Ticks all the boxes.

It's difficult to argue against that.
Felix125 replies seem like delibrate trolling in bad faith.
Take his DV counter example to repeated reporting to the police. When the police turn up to a DV incident there is usually other evidence clearly on display - cuts bruises, blood. It's not just two people words aginst each other. I know this having being a 3rd party reporter of DV to the police myself. They turned up and arrested one of the couple on the spot based on visible injuries.
That's not at all the same as "someone said mean words I don't like", DV is also a lot more serious with violence and risk of serious injury, and death. The lack of any other clear evidence in a mean words crime is probably down to just how fukking stupid the idea is in the first place.

Felix is also playing games around the "how many times?" bollocks for serial reporters (malicious or not)
because they seem to think the clock is reset after each report so it goes:
there's a report - no action taken (Think about the woman and her stalker, or serial reporters of Women With Opinions)
there's a report - no checks to see if the reporter, the reportee or the subject has come up before
there's a report - no checks to see if the reporter, the reportee or the subject has come up beforethere's a report - no checks to see if the reporter, the reportee or the subject has come up beforethere's a report - no checks to see if the reporter, the reportee or the subject has come up before
ad infinitum

Whereas a bit of joined up thinking could have saved that poor woman who was murdered, or turned the "investigation" into Women With Opinions into an investigation of a series of baseless, malicious reports. With legal consequences for the reporter (was easy enough to fine the woman who was murdered)

Felix' complete unwillingness to engage with this simple process, to confirm that's what the police do, or don't do, and based on what is very very telling.

Also (willfully?) misunderstanding my statement about how i would never engage with the police was pure Keystone Kops stuff.

I'm beginning to think Felix may be someone like Cressida Dick (for example, other senior police officers are available)

@Brefugee
I'm starting to think Felix is someone bored with nothing better to do who wants to play at being a police officer. Maybe he applied and didn't get in.
I wouldn't blame anyone who thought after reading my posts here that I was anti-police, but I support the police. We as a society need good policing. I think defunding the police is a terrible idea, I want them to have more money resources and training. The police are an essential service.
In any group of people there's always at least one idiot. This applies to all groups. There's always some bad apples but the majority are good.
I still want the police to stick to the law and use the best judgement possible in their duty, but it does seem within the UK police leadership is veering far off course from neutral upholders of the rule of law to activists glomming onto whatever the latest woke fad is.
I've met and interacted with many great police officers who have behaved impeccably, but there's always one or two out there who fall way below the standard just like any sphere of life. My best advice is to just stay clear of the ones who are obviously falling short.

In any group of people there's always at least one idiot. This applies to all groups. There's always some bad apples but the majority are good.

I know a couple of police officers and they're fine. But it isn't one bad apple, is it? Maybe there is one murderer, or one rapist, but there are plenty of them sharing WhatsApp images and misogynistic or racist chat, aren't there? We all know the history of Sarah Everard's murderer - several people interacted with him. He was a rotten apple, but they're bad apples.

I've been a woman in uniform. I have been the one who told the boss that the low-level sexist (and racist) shit had to stop in our troop and there was fall out from that. Lucky i had a level of protection that stopped the retaliation being too bad. But there is just too much of it.

I don't want to defund them (that is a very specific meaning in the USA which doesn't necessarily apply in the UK, i think) i want them to be better resourced. I want there to be more of them: properly vetted, properly fit, and properly keen to investigate crime. I literally don't care if they are dancing the conga at pride, as long as they are also doing their jobs properly. Reading reports and seeing the news these days reminds me of the very worst days of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad (anyone old enough to remember them? the "joke" being that they were likely to be carrying out the serious crimes themselves)

I want senior officers to have much much more accountability. Cressida Dick should never have been allowed to rise as high as she did - after de Menezes (sp?) she should have been fired, no pension, not promoted away.

They can start, IMO, by recruiting officers to Internal Affairs (or whatever the UK equivalent is) to carry out proper, intelligence driven, consistent background checks on all serving officers. Starting with those against whom a complaint (or more) has been made.

My memory could be at fault, but didn't Felix explain that notes of all allegations are kept on file for a DBS check? Even when no crime had been committed?
So what are the police doing, keeping files on us or not?

If they are keeping files then surely they can spot a serial complainer who is harassing people with false allegations?

@Brefugee
The thing is with the standout bad apple cases is we pretty much never hear when the police are doing a good job. It's simply not newsworthy. Every newsworthy misconduct that happens is terrible, but it does not make them representative of the whole.
I agree with accountability and internal monitoring. I'd like to see police officers be treated just like every other criminal when they are convicted of a crime not just brushed under the rug with a slap on the wrist. I'd like to see police leadership face continual scrutiny. The Rotyal College of Policing for instance seems to be responsible for a never ending stream of bad decisions against the public interest. Probably a great place to start putting police leadership back on course by firing every last one of them and explaining to their replacements why the last rotten bunch all got fired.

"If there is no necessity to arrest someone - how do you want the police to proceed then."

I want them to obey the law as I am expected to and remark only that the suggestion the only resort is to an unlawful arrest is properly funny. Come on. Please. Don't be ridiculous.

Without wishing to prologue this....

"DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter
Yes - we gather evidence. Both parties account is classed as evidence."

This is legally incoherent. The prosecution do not adduce interviews for the truth of their contents nor are they legally entitled to do so according to the law of previous consistently self serving statements.

The only relevance a defence account has to a Crown case is under the rule against self serving PCS exception of "statements relevant to the reaction of defendant upon accusation".

Forgive my bluntness, but the suggestion above is ridiculous and unknown to law.

That feeling when you are live action roleplaying at being cool and a real one turns up to publicly rubbish your poor performance :(

😂😂

Brefugee
Make a note on file for each one and not investigate further.

DV victim reports they have been assaulted - full investigation but no prosecution (victim withdraws compliant, defence raised - whatever it might be)

Next report of a DV assault - just make a note on file only? And so on and so forth after that. Or maybe after the 4th report, 5th report. And you can't see a problem with that? Just join them up ............

And then investigate the complainant with a view of prosecuting them - basing it on all the 'notes on file reports' which were never properly investigated?

I can see problems there, can't you?

You're wanting us to base the entire investigation by watching a post on Youutube? Perhaps the OIC has already spoken to the cops who allegedly were stood next to her for 100% of the time and it turns out they weren't stood there all of the time. Perhaps the cops said that they were diverted to something else for 20 minutes or so. But i guess you have already read their statements somewhere.

We
Want
You
To
Investigate

But your post above that just wants us to 'make a note of file' - whats it to be then?

What did i misunderstand about your quote - "me? I will never voluntary have any contact with the police. Not ever." - seemed quite clear to me.

And if you don't want to engage with the cops for a vol interview - then what do you expect other than being summonsed to court? If an offence is being alleged against you and that reporting person has provided a statement and willing to stand in court, do you honestly think think the judicial system would just ignore it if you didn't want to engage with the investigation. You would be summonsed to answer to that allegation. Your solicitor will get the standard disclosure documents and you would be asked to give your first account at court.

Give your account in the vol interview and it may result in the case being NFA'd early without it going to court - most are if its word on word or you raise a defence in the interview that can not be countered

But - its up to you. Easier for us to just put a file forward to the court without interview to be honest

i want them to be better resourced. I want there to be more of them: properly vetted, properly fit, and properly keen to investigate crime.
So you're happy to have the crime of public order investigated then?
Or is it certain crimes you want us to investigate?
But you don't want us to use vol interviews as part of that process - no matter what the crime is.

So if there is no necessity to arrest someone - what then?

Better resourced, properly vetted, properly fit, properly healthy, no pin badges, no charity badges, no poppies, no rainbow cars, no rainbow lanyards, internal monitoring - couldn't agree more with you!

TastefulRainbowUnicorn
An offence is reported to police - who decides if the police investigates it or not?

Who decides that its a "psychopathic creep harassing women he doesn’t know by repeatedly complaining to the police" as opposed to a "psychopathic DV victim harassing women by repeatedly complaining to the police"

We can ignore one but not the other?

Which offences do we ignore then?

Or do we investigate the offences presented to us?

AlisonDonut
So you can categorically say that she was on video the whole time with out any breaks in the footage - not even for one second? And the OIC, on receiving the account from the reporting person - is automatically going to know that its all on Youtube and knows where to look. Isn't this going to be part of the account given when the other is interviewed - or she could have mentioned it on the phone call for example, but didn't.

And you still haven't said what the actual complaint was - what was the evidence that the reporting person gave? What was in their statement?

And Felix won't be running around the country dealing with stuff like this. Felix is an emergency response cop who deals with burglaries, DV's, theft, frauds etc etc. But usually is chasing after the current suicidal missing from home or sat with a suicidal person in A&E who has swallowed hundreds of tablets - because safeguarding is where its at! Any jobs that i do manage to get sent to off the event queue I can usually investigate quickly using a vol interview - so frees me up for the next emergency.

lechiffre55
Yes fine with DV's with visible injuries - but what if there isn't and injuries. Or both have minor injuries and claim self defence.

Or its a DV harassment with no supporting evidence - just word on word. Or breach of a non mol order?

Where do you go from there?

Thelnebriati
Yes everything is kept on record - but you need to define a serial complainer?
Is it that they always make the same complaint against the same person, they have a criminal history against them, they have a series of complaints that have never resulted in a prosecution?

Because hundreds of people will fall into that category

I use the DV scenario, as most of the time the complainant withdraws their complaint (for various reasons) - so do they become a serial complainer? If its always just word against word (breach of non mol orders for example)

DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter
A police interview - either arrest or as a vol interview - is under caution. The last part of the caution states that "anything you do say can be used as evidence" So it is part of the evidence at court - mags or crown

And if a defence is raised in a police interview it should be investigated - we can't wait to the court trial. What if they say in interview that CCTV at a local shop will show he was innocent of this crime. Do we not examine this line of inquiry? Or just wait until the court trial date 6 month down the line when the CCTV has been overwritten?