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.

You do know that nobody is reading your walls of text, don't you, Felix? We're all just scrolling on by once we've realised it's more of the same shit.

And you keep saying you've answered things but all I see is questions. Should the police do this, should the police do that.

Give it up, there's a love. Your making an utter fool of yourself and still not listening to a thing women are saying. You are single handedly confirming women's fears about the police. You show us with every arrogant utterance that we are right to be concerned.

I'd LOVE an Ignore function on MN for all the wall of text wafflers and the rude, nasty wallopers.

Tallisker
So what questions am I not answering?

if you don't want to read then that's fine - but don't complain about the police not doing things properly and ask questions as to why police do things in a certain way?

And if posters raise things which I think are not correct - i am going to respond to it - why shouldn't I. Its a discussion forum after all - unless you just want me to reply "Oh yes its all terrible isn't it" all the time.

But then i would be accused of not taking the issue seriously.

Felix

I can't be arsed to respond to the rest of what you have written but I do want to respond to this:

OK - which incidents do we ignore then to increases public confidence?
And who judges which ones do we ignore?

I'd hate to tell you how to do your job but I'd start with the reports where there has been direct death threats and a history of actual violence. You know, the cases where women often end up dead because the police do fuck all to help. Investigating women for hurty words when it's men who are much more likely to commit acts of actual violence seems like a perverse set of priorities.

FOJN
Ah right, so from now on because men are much more likely to use violence - always assume that its the man who is the violent one or the one at fault.

So if a man reports an offence being committed on him by a women - we ignore it, because the chances are it won't have happened and chances are its the man at fault.

So in a DV relationship, the man reports an offence by his female partner - its probably not happened and we just ignore him.

Or if its not a violent offence, we ignore it - as there will be other violent offences we need to deal with instead - so ignore mal comms, harassment, breach of non mol orders, thefts of phones, frauds etc etc

Can't see this causing any issues for public confidence?

How do you want the OIC to jostle the jobs on her own queue, the jobs on the event queue, the emergency jobs coming in and all the safeguarding concerns (suicidal people, missing from homes etc)

Another day, another post with a dodgy line of reasoning.

Felix This is the last time I will respond to you.

If the police do not have some sort of triage system for prioritising cases they need to develop one. HTH

80% of the prison population is male and the vast majority are for violent crimes.

We know this.

May we politely suggest that the police would be better off focusing on violent men, rather than women who speak words in public without chaperones. [Who also take body cam footage the whole day due to the violent males that come at them for speaking words in public].

And yes, get that into your triage system somehow! It would be a start.

How the hell did you get that from what FOJN posted?

It does look like Felix just copies and pastes a lot of their responses from a pre-prepared diversion diagram. It's bad faith arguing.

Everyone has been very patient but he's never going to engage with the discussion in good faith.

He isn't here to engage. He is here to police all police threads.

Agree with Hat.

I think Felix is a great metaphor for what's happened the police in general.
They are meant to serve the public and keep us safe, we pay them to do this. Long ago they stopped listening to the public they are meant to protect, and now they don't give a flying fork about what we think. They are off doing their own thing and lost the public a long time ago. Nowhere has Felix listened or taken on board the concerns expressed here, he's only here to tell us why we are wrong.

Felix also seems to thing that violent acts are only ever perpetrated by an offender of the opposite sex to the victim.

Is someone going to tell him that it's statistically more likely for a man to be a victim of violent crime but that it is still statistically more likely the offender will also be male? I'm sure there are plenty of men who would rather tax pounds were spent investigating real crimes.

The point is Felix regardless of the sex of the suspect or victim I don't think the police should be in investigating anyone because someone's feelings are hurt.

Please leave women alone and do some meaningful policing.

I know it wasn't felix who said this, but I also think the PCs who think "women think the police are out to get them (subtext: women are paranoid)" is a really unhelpful starting point.

It's already a block in the form of unconscious bias. Any woman with a reasonable complaint who goes to a police officer holding a view like that is going to be starting for a position of having to convince them that they are not being paranoid or ridiculous or whatever.

Felix is just spewing bullshit.
s/he has NOT answered questions.
I would like to see a simple yes/no to some of them.
But frankly? I just slide by their posts now

FOJN
We do - starts with the call takers, moves onto the Force Incident Management, moves onto the, crime management unit, dispatchers, then onto the discretion of the cop sent. Everything triaged.

And i have never said that violent acts are only ever perpetrated by an offender of the opposite sex to the victim - where have I said that?

And the offence is not hurty words. Its an offence under the public order act - a specific offence in law. We don't know what the reporting person has alleged against KJK, so we can not judge. But it has passed all the above triage stages. Even the cop who was sent can't get rid of it at source (which would be in her own interests) and needed to investigate further. Why would the cop be doing this rather than get rid of it and crack on with the rest of her crime queue?

AlisonDonut
police would be better off focusing on violent men, rather than women who speak words in public
We can't just pick on one group over another. It doesn't matter what the sex, ethnicity, religious background of a reporting person is -their report is taken on its merits.

As you have also agreed to - in the KJK case, we don't know what the actual reporting person has said in their report/statement - so we can not judge what the complaint is.

ScreamingMeMe
The reply was to the post of "....Investigating women for hurty words when it's men who are much more likely to commit acts of actual violence..."
Seems to imply that the police should be focusing more on men as the perpetrator in each case

HatThatWearsYou
I'm not copy and pasting from anything - all my own words. If you disagree with anything I have written, just ask.

lechiffre55
I think Felix is a great metaphor for what's happened the police in general.
They are meant to serve the public and keep us safe, we pay them to do this. Long ago they stopped listening to the public they are meant to protect, and now they don't give a flying fork about what we think. They are off doing their own thing and lost the public a long time ago. Nowhere has Felix listened or taken on board the concerns expressed here, he's only here to tell us why we are wrong.

Is the reporting person in the KJK case a member of the public?
Do we just ignore anything he says from now on?
Do we use this stance for other reported incidents from persistent callers?

And i am listening - you're just not listening to me and keep repeating incorrect things all the time:

If you have enough evidence you can arrest someone - not true
Vol interviews are never beneficial to the interviewee - not true
Police don't investigate defence alibis/statement - not true
No triage happens to reporting calls - not true
We should ignore persistent callers - we can't (cry wolf scenario)
KJK is being investigated for hurty words - not true, we don't know what report is
Police at the event had KJK under total observations - unknown

If people are posting things that are not true, I'm going to comment

Brefugee
Felix is just spewing bullshit.

So far on this thread I have said:

Police should be better vetted and continued to be vetted through their service. Anyone having committed an offence should be binned. Intelligence should be used in this vetting process, so any cop on a social media platform can be monitored and sacked if they are posting things that are misogynistic, racist etc etc

We should not have rainbow cars, rainbow lanyards, poppies, pin badges, Ukraine badges, charity ribbons, charity badges etc etc

Defence statements & alibis must be investigated by the police before going to court

R v Roberts has nothing to do with police interviews under caution

Choose to do a voluntary Interview and the case may be NFA'd without the need to go to court - so beneficial to the interviewee.

If there is no defence interview then he court will have only the reporting persons statement to go with - effectively one word against nothing if there is no supporting evidence.

Persistent callers to the police who have had a jail term for sex offences cannot simple be ignored. Each complaint must be taken on its merits and passed through the triage stages.

if we take a stance of ignoring persistent callers to police, then vulnerable victims will fall through the net, such as DV victims, suicidal people

So I take it you disagree with all of the above?

If you want a Yes/No answer, then don't ask open questions.
Whats the question you want a Yes/No answer to?

Oh gosh I wonder if it would be possible to distinguish between calls regarding domestic violence and calls relating to speech and treat one with more seriousness? It seems not, in Felix's world.

ScreamingMeMe
The reply was to the post of "....Investigating women for hurty words when it's men who are much more likely to commit acts of actual violence..."
Seems to imply that the police should be focusing more on men as the perpetrator in each case

No! It's about where your focus and priorities lie.

Go back to the last page where I described how jobs coming in are prioritised.

calls to DV incidents will always out trump one of 'hurty words'. That's why the 'hurty words' one will drop onto the event queue - not the priority queue. But it appears that it has been classed as a public order offence as opposed to just 'hurty words'. Why is that? What is the actual report here by the reporting person?

My point is one concerning persistent callers to the police. This guy who has made the allegation against KJK appears to be a constant caller. So I am asking at what point do we ignore him and what are the reasons given to ignore him. Because if we set a president, we will have to do it to other constant callers.

Log it as yet another call from the same individual, and if he has no evidence its low priority. At what point do you investigate him for wasting police time? If you didn't log his calls how do you know he is persistent?

Keep going Felix you're doing a grand job.

And I am questioning why you treat all reports of crimes exactly the same, with the same 'rules' when some are clearly more serious than others.

<screams into a bucket>

Surely there is a trigger plan for him, he can be investigated for a wasting police time,
Call a professionals meeting if he has MH issues

If all else fails get a criminal behaviour order to divert him from calling the police unless a real emergency

It's been done before

well obviously they can keep track of "malicious calls" because they managed to fine a woman legitimately reporting her stalker and fined her for making malicious calls and then her stalker killed her.

But serial reporters of women causing them hurty feelz is way too much for plod to cope with so they treat each new one as a separate crime of the century.