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.

i want them (police) to be better resourced. I want there to be more of them: properly vetted, properly fit, and properly keen to investigate crime.

Don't we all - me included

But mix into that pot suicidal missing people, missing kids from care homes, hospital guards, cell watches, sudden deaths, mental health cases, children in protective police custody etc etc - your resources vanish quickly

Where does all this fit in

Obvious crimes - no problem - burglaries etc

But what about crimes like the ones were are discussing here. How far do we investigate if a person phones up making a report that an offence has occurred against them.

If you are that call taker - what would you do and how would you grade the call - urgent or non urgent, top of the queue or bottom of the queue. Who do you send

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?

How the fuck would we know?

Why not TELL KJK what that is so that she can respond? The police know about her being there as they were right these in amongst the videos, on screen, the whole time.

Again if they can't find the evidence in all the footage what is the point of a voluntary interview?

(sigh)

"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"

Given in evidence is subject to the caveat I've identified, that's it's a self-serving PCS evidence exception where the Crown don't rely on the truth, quite the opposite. "Used in evidence" doesn't specify HOW it is used in evidence. I have set out the position correctly in law with reference to the PCS exception rule.

You seem to be suggesting it is used as defence evidence.

It isn't. You are wrong in law to suggest it is. Don't make me go get the caselaw.

"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?"

Why must a "reasonable line of inquiry" be identified in an interview rather than a CPIA 1996 Defence statement or solicitor's letter?

This is particularly the case with a CPIA Defence statement which is served BEFORE the trial negating your objection that "we can't wait to the court trial".

Answer: It doesn't have to be, this is just another weak argument where you seem to be saying an interview under caution is the only opportunity for the parties to speak to each other.

It isn't.

In civil matters the parties identify issues perfectly well absent an interview. Precisely the same happens in crime all the time with NC interviews or cases without interviews.

Really, come on, you're being ridiculous here, solicitors identify RLI under the code of practice obligations outside of interviews ALL THE TIME. That's sort of the point of a pre-first hearing sol's letter. Please.

Sod it, I've just been writing about this subject to here's the case law - all references are to Blackstones Criminal Practice 2023

(See BCP F6.39 for the general rule against previous consistent statements and F6.40 for this exception)
• Generally speaking, previous self-serving statements are easily manufactured and of little evidential value, see R v Roberts [1942] 1 All ER 187 where the accused saying two days after a shooting that his defence would be one of accident properly excluded in a trial where accident was the defence.

• For this reason, subject to exceptions, previous consistent statements are inadmissible.

There are exceptions to this rule :
• Previous complaints
• Previous identification and description (s.120 CJA 2003 )
• Statements which rebut the suggestion of recent fabrication
• Statements forming part of the res gestae

And - as regards interviews:

• Self-serving statements on accusation (as per the MCQ)

The general principle is that the prosecution are obliged to adduce such statements, R v Pearce (1979) 69 Cr App R 365 (Blackstone’s F6.40).

There is an important distinction as between the evidential value and purpose for which such statements are adduced depending on whether they are self-serving or exculpatory.

The rule can be summarised thus; where the prosecution adduce a wholly or partially exculpatory/self-serving statement by the accused they are doing so not to adduce the facts therein, nor can the statement in law be deployed for such a purpose (R v Storey (1968) 52 Cr App R 334)) – the only purpose in law such a statement can be adduced for is to provide evidence of the reaction of the accused on being taxed with the allegations against them.

Please note that is subject to the “third category” of cases in Pearce which concern efforts by the accused in interviews to put forward pre prepared statements designed to form part of the prosecution case and work to the accused’s advantage; here the trial judge may exclude such evidence. (A rare example of an ability to exclude defence evidence).

So while the statement may be "given in evidence" that does not mean it is given AS evidence of the facts - just the temperament/reaction of the accused which significantly here is deployed to ASSIST the prosecution case.

AlisonDonut
How the fuck would we know?
Exactly - so how can you make your judgement as to what is being alleged and when it happened if you don't know what the reporting person has said.

And how is the OIC (on taking the account of the reporting person) automatically aware that police were at the event and its all on Youtube?

DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter
A defence statement can be given at any point whist under caution. Unsolicited comments can be made after arrest which are admissible. A defence statement is sometimes given at the start of the police interview. A written statement made by the suspect or their solicitor - often ends by "I wish to make no other comment in this interview"

So if a person is interviewed by police under caution and gives a defence "I was at work at the time" "I was at a corner shop" - you're saying its not down to the police to investigate this line of enquiry before it goes to trial?

So while the statement may be "given in evidence" that does not mean it is given AS evidence of the facts
But the statement may be "given in evidence" must be investigated no matter when it is given. This would be a reasonable line of enquiry (RLE) which must be concluded before CPS can make a judgement. The Investigation management document covers this.

Beside which, R v Roberts [1942] 1 All ER 187 is about oral or written statements in any case given - nothing to do with police interviews under caution

Because the local police who were there have eyes and saw the cameras, body cams, and know very well it was being livestreamed?

How did they know her phone number to call her if they didn't know who she was? They can't simultaneously not know who she is and also know who she is.

Felix - you win. You have talked at me and ignored what i've written in favour of what you would like me to have written so you can write more of your meaningless bullshit. Just stop.

I was very very clear. You are either too thick or too not-interested to address it properly. Please stop.

Hey alll

I've been trying to stay off here but I have to say without any bias because I've been really looking at this stuff and reading the threads and the links .....

But Felix is right on the facts here . The police would be ripped to shreds in court if they didn't follow every available line of enquiry to either prove or disprove an offence .

I don't have a huge amount of confidence in some officers or forces who are receiving the woke training and are indoctrinated by trans ideology, stonewall and mermaids bullshit - but Felix is factually correct in what he is saying . You might not like it - but it's true .

As I said before - we are simply the evidence gatherers. That all evidence- in favour of the complainant OR the suspect - that's the idea of an investigation- if the evidence isn't there it shouldn't get to court . If it is - it's a magistrate or judge and jury who decide on guilt or innocence.

I get the feeling a lot of women think the police are "out to get them " and that simply shouldn't be the case at all- this is the issue with the police who should be neutral being given biased training in favour of being so politically correct that it clouds common sense , investigative mindset , and no I wouldn't trust much that some forces and officers are being taught .
I think from reading Felix posts he is pretty old school much like myself . It's difficult to try and explain procedure as it should be done when clearly some officers/forces are bias and to
An audience who is deeply mistrusting of the police anyway .
I'm truly sorry that's what so many women feel now . We're just two old school bobbies on the beat trying to do the right thing - Felix says his force haven't had this training by stonewall et al and I can assure you my force hasn't . Our force is led by a woman . I like what she says . Our force also has a pretty equal % of men and women - when I joined there really weren't enough women in the job .

Both myself and Felix can only speak from our experiences, although I'm well aware of failings and politics and why the public are so mistrustful. It does pain me . But I can't change the world , I can't make people trust the police as a wider organisation and all I can do is keep raising the issues here with focus groups and managers although this is now becoming detrimental to my career as it happens - but I do t really care . I've no aspirations to be promoted and I do t really care if I ruffle a few feathers of the self serving cloth eared fools at the top.

You don't have to like us - but Felix and I are I think being truthful and factual and trying to explain some procedures that anyone not a police officer , detective , would understand.

I'm not saying that to patronise - but we are supposed to be neutral , no sides taken , no simply believing one persons word against another - we work on facts - it appears there are some massive failings and they are very public (good!) but not institutional I don't believe . Well - not in my force or from my own experience. Clearly many on this thread and board have had a different experience.

Oh and evidence works both ways - if an accused person does have an interview and says "that couldn't possibly be me because I was in Tesco doing the weekly shop - we have to check that out - get that cctv evidence to disprove the accusation. We aren't just out to prove an offence - we have to question people - guilty or innocent to establish the facts and present them - if someone is making up a spurious allegation and we can prove that the job would get thrown out before getting anywhere near court . I e given tickets to people who have made shite up for wasting police time - if it can be proven they're lying .

The police should never have become the enemy of decent normal people abiding people exercising their right to freedom of speech .

The thing is though @stillvicarinatutu is you appear to be engaging with the very real concerns of women on this thread (although I did think your posts on another thread were a bit cloth-eared) However, @Felix125 seems to me to be talking over women, not looking to acknowledge their concerns. Felix is like that audience member at a seminar who when the guest speaker concludes and asks for questions, Felix steps up and says "Its not so much of a question but more of a statement I'd like to make, it will come in 3745 parts and will focus entirely on my world view and will not engage constructively with what you've said"

1. You've confused a statutory Defence statement under the CPIA 1996 with a written pre-prepared statement in interview. They are not the same. That confusion doesn't answer my central point re communication of RLI outside interviews.
2. You've misunderstood the evidential value of PCS which are self serving. You are now eliding that with a RLI point and not answering the point I made which regarding "gathering evidence".
3. R v Roberts predates modern hearsay/confession law.

I have read some of what felix125 the bobby says on this thread. It has been interesting and instructive, albeit perhaps not in the way he or she thinks.

We - ordinary citizens - have learned, many of us, to be wary of police officers and their behaviour. Why? ... And is our wariness justified?

I think felix's posts - yours too - unwittingly show wariness indeed to be justified. Here is one example. (One among many.)

You say, 'Oh and evidence works both ways ...'

But really that should not be the case. I have done no wrong. It should - must - never be the case that I should have to prove myself innocent. The shoe is - and ought to remain - firmly on the other foot: it behoves any accuser to show proof of my guilt, and failing such proof (which cannot exist, as I have done no wrong), I remain, of course, innocent and free as the proverbial bird.

The asymmetry here is encoded in the maxim 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why is it so important? Perhaps I could leave you with that question: consider, in trying to answer for yourself, how you might think of the matter as a citizen of present-day Hong Kong ... or of Franco's Spain, perhaps (or, indeed, of Tudor-ruled England and Wales long ago). Consider.

Thing is, for reasons probably clear enough, it is an occupational hazard of policing in any circumstances that practitioners will tend to become inured to such maxims as 'innocent unless/until proven guilty' and the safeguards thereby encapsulated.

You have fallen prey to that hazard, with your 'evidence works both ways' ... felix falls, likewise and perhaps even more egregiously, with comments such as '... their opportunity to put their side of the story across in an interview and provide evidence to show they are innocent.'

No. A society in which citizens need to prove their innocence is a tyranny. Police officers, in the nature of their calling prone to tyrannical thought and action, require careful regulation to avoid the dreadful consequences of such thought and action.

I know you mean well, you and felix both. That's plain, I think. But you show by your posts here that we should indeed remain very wary of policemen and women like you.

But Felix is right on the facts here . The police would be ripped to shreds in court if they didn't follow every available line of enquiry to either prove or disprove an offence.

Well of course, we all understand this but if a case has made it as far as court then an arrest has been made. It's the implication that a voluntary interview is an opportunity for a suspect to "give their side of the story" which is causing confusion. I thought the job of the police was to gather evidence for the prosecution to make it's case. Checking the veracity of information given by a suspect is necessary to prevent them looking like incompetent tits in court if the defence presents evidence which proves their client could not possibly be guilty. All of that information can be gathered in a formal police interview if you have sufficient evidence to justify an arrest.

@stillvicarinatutu
I think you are engaging in good faith, and you are probably a good police officer. But I still feel uneasy. I think it because being a police officer seems to at the core slant an individual's outlook, and how they go about things.
On the KJK protests.
You have two groups of people who have diametrically opposed beliefs in very strong and emotional opposition. One group has a protest/event, the other group turns up to protest the original protest. One group turns up in black block gear designed specifically to make identification of individuals by the police difficult, the other group turns up in colourful clothes with no attempt to hide or mask their faces. Very easy to identify. The black block group is very agressive and violent, the other group is isn't collectively capable of violence because they are women and lack the natural males urges towards violence and male bodies. They just want to be heard. This much so far is obvious to any observer I believe.
Someone from the aggresive side makes a complaint to the police against the women. It seems at this point all logic and common sense goes out of the window. The women now are a threat, or have comitted a meanspeak crime. There seems to be no filtering by the police going on at this point. "OK were you at the counter protest?" "Yes, can you prove it?" "OK so in this photo of people all covering their faces and wearing black grey uniforms, which one are you?" "So you are the guy with a baseball bat with kill all TERFs written on it?" "And you felt threatend by the women in floral patterns?" At some point in normal person land this gets seen as a good old British farce.
Where did the police just give up on common sense and proportionality?
Lets go back to the voluntary interview question because it is the basis of this thread. Why should KJK have to attend a voluntary interview when the police already don't have enough to go in front of a magistrate who will just laugh them out? Why have the police not looked at it and thought to themselves "You know we've got fuck all here? Maybe we should go solve some rape cases instead." "I hear Bradford is lovely this time of year" "Ohhh no don't fancy that!"
From a purely logical point of view it can only either stay the same or get worse for KJK if she attends. It cannot possibly get better for KJK by attending.
I'm very sorry that good officers like yourself get tarred by the idiots, but for as long as the UK police keeps humouring the idiot activists within the force the reputation of the police is only going to continue to suffer and get worse. It is not the general public diminishing the reputation of the police, it is the police themselves diminishing the reputation of the police through their own actions.

i appreciate you coming here @stillvicarinatutu and since Felix keeps ignoring it and obfuscating and adding to my disdain for police officers like them (not all, the ones like Felix) perhaps you can explain how it works with serial complainers.

How long is one person/organisation allowed to constantly harass someone by shouting to the police at the drop of a hat about their hurty feels before the police say: ENOUGH you're nicked?
Because in the case of the one(s) reporting CF and KJK and FemmeLoves it seems: infinately. For ever and ever Armen until the end of the world and these women have to suck it up.

In the case of one young woman being stalked and harassed it was not many and BAM! fined. And then, as we know, murdered because she was telling the actual truth and not reporting hurty feelz.

And the complete and utter refusal to engage in a meaningful way with this question means that I am completely not listening to anything else Felix says. Because none of it is in good faith.

Am also aghast at the notion that an actual honest to god police officer thinks people can or should prove their innocence. That is a very very telling notion and the phrase "low hanging fruit" comes to mind. Again.

Sorry, posted too early.

According to Felix A can rock up to the police and say "B did something illegal" and the police will go and talk to B even though they were standing there at the time and didn't do anything. It is beyond belief. No looking through the very available video evidence (bodycams?). Just "oh, right you are, A, don't worry we're on it"

Which is your force

I get the feeling a lot of women think the police are "out to get them"
Would you say that to any other group discussing how policing policies have impacted their community?
The issue is not that women think the police are out to get them. The police are being influenced by lobby groups.

Brefugee

I will come back and answer your q but I am really unwell today , my eyes won't work . I'll come back when I feel a bit better.

please don't feel obliged to come back to this @stillvicarinatutu - i hope you feel better soon

AlisonDonut
So the local police automatically inform all police that they were there just in case an incident is reported?

And the OIC (who maybe from a different force) is aware of this from the onset?

They may know who she is as the reporting person has identified her.

But - as you have said - you don't know what the reporting person has said.

Brefugee
I have answered your points - if you don't understand - just ask

I have said that we have to take each compliant on its merits - you can only prosecute for a serial complainer or wasting police time if you have evidence against them that there complaint is malicious. You can't just assume because they have made complaints in the past that have not gone to court that they must be malicious all the time.

A can rock up to the police and say "B did something illegal" and the police will go and talk to B even though they were standing there at the time and didn't do anything.
You don't know they were stood there 100% of their time - unless you have their statement - I have mentioned this before.

And yes A can make an allegation without any other evidence. Most reports to police are one word against another. Take DV harassment, common assaults, breach of non mol orders. Does A have to provide evidence with them otherwise the police should take no further action from the start? How do historic rapes and sexual assaults fit into this?

DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter
We are talking about police interviews under caution - either under arrest or as a vol interview. So R v Roberts [1942] 1 All ER 187 is irrelevant here.

cigiwi
You say, 'Oh and evidence works both ways ...'
You have to investigate the offence as a whole - not just from one side. So if the suspect is interviewed and gives an account, you have to investigate that account. "I was in a shop at the time, or I was at work". You can only present it to court once all the lines of inquiry have been examined. That's why there is sometimes insufficient evidence to proceed. the court wont take it otherwise.

But really that should not be the case. I have done no wrong. It should - must - never be the case that I should have to prove myself innocent. The shoe is - and ought to remain - firmly on the other foot: it behoves any accuser to show proof of my guilt, and failing such proof (which cannot exist, as I have done no wrong), I remain, of course, innocent and free as the proverbial bird.
Exactly - the reporting person has to provide some sort of evidence - but this can be their statement only. This will be enough to start an investigation - but it will always be difficult to prove as it is word on word.

But just because it is word on word, should the police take no further action because the suspect doesn't have to account for their actions? Lots of offences fall into this category from rapes to sexual assault to DV assaults with no injuries, to harassment to breaches of restraining orders.

What would you want the police to do if a reporting person only has their account with no other supporting evidence?

FOJN
just because a case has made it to court, it doesn't mean an arrest has been made. Cases go to court following vol interviews all the time. As above, its up to the police to investigate the account given by the suspect in interview (under arrest or as a vol interview).

the grounds only cover the offence - the arrest is only possible if you have a necessity to do it. If there is no necessity, you can't arrest.

If a person makes an allegation against you for example, and their is no necessity to arrest you - you have two options. A vol interview (at the police station or at your home address with a solicitor) or just be summonsed to court. if you are interviewed, you can give an account (I was at work at the time of the offence) which will render the case null and void - no court required. It just prevents you being summonsed to court if you can say why you were at the time. If you don't want to say, fine, then we have only got the reporting person's statement as chief evidence - so you will probably be summonsed to court. Just save you time and hassle of going to court.

lechiffre55
"OK were you at the counter protest?" "Yes, can you prove it?" "OK so in this photo of people all covering their faces and wearing black grey uniforms, which one are you?" "So you are the guy with a baseball bat with kill all TERFs written on it?" "And you felt threatend by the women in floral patterns?" At some point in normal person land this gets seen as a good old British farce.

And what if the reporting person says - yes I was not anyone of them people - I was the one standing close by in a normal T shirt with no baseball bat or mask. And the specif threat by the women in floral patterns was XY and Z

But you wouldn't entertain that as a possibility?

Why should KJK have to attend a voluntary interview when the police already don't have enough to go in front of a magistrate who will just laugh them out? Why have the police not looked at it and thought to themselves "You know we've got fuck all here?
We do, you have the statement from the reporting person which describes a public order offence. This is what the OIC is investigating. The OIC is offering an opportunity for KJK to be interviewed and give her account. If not we have only got the reporting person's statement as chief evidence with nothing to counter it.

What would you want the police to do if a reporting person only has their account with no other supporting evidence?

the other group is isn't collectively capable of violence because they are women and lack the natural males urges towards violence and male bodies.
Are you saying women can not be violent then? And police shouldn't even consider this as a possibility?

stillvicarinatutu
Over to you - not sure if you can word it differently.

So the local police automatically inform all police that they were there just in case an incident is reported

If an incident that happened at an event that is attended by many police officers, is on you tube many times, has the body cam footage from officers and knows there will be footage the person in question I'd expect one of you to think 'hang on, why not ask someone who was there'? Bit of a leap for you guys I get that. Just one of you. That's all it takes. One person to put 2 and 2 together at possibly the most evidenced event in Brighton history.

Presumably, all officers who were there had their body cams running. So if none of them pressed the button to 'keep this recording' you'd assume that nothing untowards from the women's side actually happened. [I am referring to your earlier admission on the other police thread that you policed the whole time, that officers only press the button to save footage if needed, it films constantly so they'd only press the button if something was kicking off].

Surely that would be PART of this INVESTIGATION! Ask our own colleagues who were all there. Simples.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c0edec82-6d08-11ed-b8ae-c57034dfa905?shareToken=b169bff4cc6f58a4a055f212611e6317

Get off social media and go knock on some doors...which is what would be on Bosch's mini office wall these days. Go find actual evidence to solve some actual crimes.