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.

Brefugee
You need evidence if you are going to prosecute someone for wasting police time.
If the evidence isn't there, it isn't there. We can't just invent evidence. We need to have a specific reason/evidence for saying that this report is malicious. So what is that reason? - bare in mind we can't just assume its false because previous reports have not resulted in a prosecution, or use his past criminal history to assume that this one is false. We also don't know what the specific allegation that has been raised here.

Bearyhumcrack
Felix, you are so patronising I can hardly articulate it. I seriously hope you aren't in my local force.
So you're local force is not investigating the harassment allegation that you are suffering.
I am saying that I would - i would also be able to locate your phone in seconds.

I have also 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

But you seem to disagree with my stance

If you prefer the way you're local force does things as opposed to way I/we do things, then don't complain about your local force and let things run as they are - its up to you.

FOJN
Not quite

They can be invited for a vol interview if there is no necessity to arrest, regardless of the amount of evidence available or the severity of the offence - you need a necessity. And its not a case of needing 'evidence for the defence'. You need to give the other party an opportunity to give their account. Once this account has been made, it will need to be investigated before the next gate. The case might be NFA'd at that point, but it may merit being passed to CPS for a charging decision.

Even if they are arrested, then the chances are they are going to be released after interview for the case to be processed in any case.

If they give an account in interview which exonerates them, the case could be NFA'd there and then without it needing to go to court.

If they refuse to give an account in a vol interview or refuse to remain - its similar to a 'no reply' interview - If you want to arrest after they have failed to attend, then you still need a necessity to do so. But they key word here is 'voluntary' - they have been given an opportunity to be interviewed, but refused.

If no defence is raised, the case has one word against nothing. We have a reporting persons statement & witness testimony with nothing to oppose it. So the chances are it will be processed to court for a trial. How else are the court going to make a judgement?

At court, if they then raise a defence - it will be argued that the caution has been given to them ".... it will harm you're defence if do not mention when questioned something which you later reply on in court..." This will obviously become relevant and may go 'badly' for them.

If you think this process is bull - then please ensure you speak with a solicitor if you find yourself in this situation.

all i hear is "blah blah blah we don't care until they kill you and then, soz, we can't do anything"

All I hear is "but we can't possibly say no to men, what happens if the women DID post a meme?"

I love how Felix keeps coming back to explain to us like we're two year olds.

Apparently you can be taken to court, without being interviewed voluntarily or otherwise, on the basis of the evidence the police have from the complainant. A crime can be referred to the CPS without an arrest being made because "prompt investigation", which would provide the necessity to arrest is a difficult threshold to meet.

I'm happy to give Felix yet another opportunity to defend a broken system which is weaponised to harass women.

Felix is quite scary really. Such an inability to understand relatively simple scenarios, or to even understand why what they are saying is an issue.

I really really hope they are just a wannabe cop and not a real one. Because if this is the standard of policing in the UK, I'd be very worried.

I don't get how 47 complaints about "hurty feels" isn't IN ITSELF the fucking evidence they need. But what do i know?

It is the standard. In my last report (when the stalker sent someone to photograph me getting arrested and then posted it on her instagram) I said "I'm close to giving up". This resulted in a "welfare check" to my workplace at 0130 (because I wasn't at my home address, the force I'm reporting to had to call a different force). Yes. For my welfare. At 0130. A week after I made the report. Fortunately, work had no idea whether I was there or not (I was actually at a conference hundreds of miles away).

Absolute fucking clowns. No comment on the photographer, the photograph, or my complaint of course.

I have answered this. All crimes that are reported are graded as to threat, harm & risk and prioritised accordingly. So a murder will always out trump a report of common assault for example.

So why do you keep using calls about domestic violence as a direct comparator to calls about mean words?

at what point do we start to ignore a persistent caller. You can join all the dots up you want , but at what point do we ignore them from the outset? 2 calls, 3 calls, 4 calls?

Christ alive, it really is like pulling teeth. The point is not just the number of calls, it's the number of calls about mean words incidents which end up going nowhere.

Brefugee
So what is the actual complaint made against KJK here then, so we can judge?
Otherwise we are just amusing. And we can't just assume basing it on his past reports not being successfully prosecuted. 25 pages in, and you still haven't told me.

FOJN
I love how Felix keeps coming back to explain to us like we're two year olds. - I wonder why that is......?

Yes you can take cases to court based on evidence from a complainant - their statement which they will give under oath at court . With no evidence to stand against it what do you expect? Do you think that if a suspect refuses to be interviewed the case will be NFA'd if its one word against another?

Yes - a case can be sent to CPS and a court without the need for an arrest - where in PACE does in require an arrest to be made? If its an historic report of a crime - how can it ever be classed as 'prompt' for prompt & effective?

Bearyhumcrack
But you seem happy with the status quo as you don't want to complain. I have said what i would do if I had the case.

ScreamingMeMe
Because a lot of domestic cases are ones of harassment, mal comms - 'mean words' as you put it - do we start to ignore these if the complainant has made several reports which have not resulted in a prosecution?

So (AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE) - what are 'mean words' to one - might be offensive or grossly offensive to another.

Is 'No TERFS on our TURF' just mean words that should be ignored. If you don't like it then don't look at it as the judge said.
The misogynistic Whatsapp groups that Couzens cronies were using - were these just 'hurty words' as you put it?

If you read what I posted (I know your ilk struggle to actually listen to/read what we say). Of course I have fucking complained.

Problem is, you are all so utterly shit at your jobs that in both forces I have made complaints about, I've been told there will be at least a 4 month wait for investigation.

Id rather be investigated by Greengrass from fucking Heartbeat than you lot of balloon knots. I've never ever experienced such incompetence.

I will never, ever find it in me to support the police in future. You get what you deserve.

100% agree
The police are the patriarchy enforcers.
They are white dudes who have authority fetishes protecting property and make authority.
The reviews of behaviour have been categorical
The police are racist and sexist.

Their ability to operate without the courts makes them a danger to women and girls.
Their make up and personal record of violence against women make them dangerous
Their willingness to shield each other from the law make them a danger to women and girls.

That they fully embraced illegal anti female ethos for or points is completely on brand for them.

They are not "our" protectors, the law is not wielded equally. Because it is wielded by men. Sexist racist men.

It's not me who's saying there are no distinctions between different scenarios. That has been my point all along!

So you literally just go with what the complainant says then? You don't apply any discretion, judgement or weighting at all, you don't have any guidelines - is that what you're saying?

Is 'No TERFS on our TURF' just mean words that should be ignored. If you don't like it then don't look at it as the judge said.

No woman has ever complained to the police about a sign or tweet saying that.

And I don't understand: what judge?

All day every day.

I love how Felix keeps coming back to explain to us like we're two year olds. - I wonder why that is......?

FWIW I don't rate your intelligence much either, mainly because you keep missing the point.

Yes you can take cases to court based on evidence from a complainant - their statement which they will give under oath at court . With no evidence to stand against it what do you expect? Do you think that if a suspect refuses to be interviewed the case will be NFA'd if its one word against another?

FFS what do you mean "no evidence to stand against it". Presumably evidence can be given in court, it's hardly as if you lose the opportunity to defend yourself if you decline to be bullied into a voluntary interview by the police. Apparently "come for a voluntary interview or we'll arrest you", is just the plod being friendly. And yet weirdly they can threaten to arrest you whilst simultaneously not arresting you because they don't have the necessity to arrest you but it's OK because the case can go to court without all that kerfuffle anyway.

Are you even reading what you have written?

Yes - a case can be sent to CPS and a court without the need for an arrest - where in PACE does in require an arrest to be made? If its an historic report of a crime - how can it ever be classed as 'prompt' for prompt & effective?

I appreciate you need to frame this as if we are discussing historical cases because otherwise you look a fool but no one else here is discussing historical cases, we're talking about a current case. I would have thought that "prompt and effective investigation" was desirable for every CURRENT and ONGOING case. The police have threatened to arrest KJK so they clearly think the cause of the hurty feelings warrants an prompt and effective investigation.

And yes it's hurty feelings, we've been dealing with this shit for years and it never makes it as far as court because the process is the punishment.

Have you tried saying you're grossly offended, @Bearyhumcrack ?

/s

Bearyhumcrack
You complained that it was first come first served, in that the first investigation will need to be completed before yours can begin.

This is false.

That's what you need to complain about. A new investigation can commence with a different OIC whist the first one is ongoing.

If your call was given to me - I would investigate it from the off. I would also be able to find your phone within seconds if its in police property.

ScreamingMeMe
So you literally just go with what the complainant says then? You don't apply any discretion, judgement or weighting at all, you don't have any guidelines - is that what you're saying?
Of course we do - we gather evidence to support or negate the offence. This will include the other person's account. This is the investigation part.

But what if there is no other evidence available apart from the reporting persons statement? And the accused person refuses to give an account? Its one word against nothing - where do we go from there?

The judge was mentioned by SnapeAlways - they suggested a judge has said to a reporting person not to look at things in a public forum if he finds them harassing. So this could be used for the misogynistic whatssap groups could it? And for posts like the 'No TERFS on our Turf ' mentioned by a poster earlier on?

FOJN
Yes, you can give your evidence at court - but the point is, there might not be a need to go to court if you could give an account prior. If you give an account at court, the trial will be adjourned so the alibi can be examined.

Its just wasting your own time, when you could have given your account in the police interview earlier. If it checks out you could be NFA'd there and then.

Its a vol interview - if the police are going to arrest you, they need a necessity to arrest. If you haven't attended for the vol interview and they have a necessity to arrest - they may elect to do so. They may not. It depends what the necessity is. We don't know what the actual report is against KJK, so we don't know what the necessity could be - do they need certain acts within PACE which you can only do whilst under arrest for example?

This is an historical case - the complaint against KJK has gone home and made the report after the event - therefore its classed as an historic event. Prompt & effective arrest necessity will only really apply to ongoing offences - emergency calls to police where fights are still on going, burglars caught in the act etc etc. Just because you have a current ongoing investigation - you don't have a necessity to arrest under 'prompt & effective'.

So this is an historical case which has ended up on an event queue and probably sat there for days/weeks before the OIC has had a chance to look at it.

So if this case is just about 'hurty words' - what were they?
You must know if you have suggested this - so what has the reporting person said?

ScreamingMeMe
Have you tried saying you're grossly offended, @Bearyhumcrack ?
Strewth! - being grossly offended is for mal comms, not S2 harassment.
So what are the mal comms aspects of it?

/s is the sarcasm tag. Strewth.

they suggested a judge has said to a reporting person not to look at things in a public forum if he finds them harassing. So this could be used for the misogynistic whatssap groups could it? And for posts like the 'No TERFS on our Turf ' mentioned by a poster earlier on?

So context and individual facts of a case don't mean anything?

You know, forget it. I don't want you to reply to me any more Felix.

Yes, best to ignore.

Ty for your suggestion. I will think about it... currently any communication with that organisation triggers severe anxiety which I thought I had under control.

ScreamingMeMe
So context and individual facts of a case don't mean anything?
I would say they do - that's why they need investigating and all of it taking into consideration. So the reporting person's report against KJK needs to be investigated, which would include KJK's account. But we can't just ignore the initial report from the reporting person because he has made previous similar reports. The whole thing needs to be investigated - if its to be done properly. And if it turns out that there is no supporting evidence, just his statement - do we ignore the complaint?

But since we don't know what the initial report is, we can't comment.

Bearyhumcrack
Ty for your suggestion. I will think about it... currently any communication with that organisation triggers severe anxiety which I thought I had under control.

Go through a solicitor then.

Felix, go fuck yourself you sanctimonious prick.

👍

I would say they do - that's why they need investigating and all of it taking into consideration

So why do you keep doing the "But what about [completely different scenario]" then????!!!!

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Take heart, maybe things are starting to change. Bit surprised it's NYP.
Louise Moody's Twitter:

twitter.com/drlouisejmoody/status/1599135562564177920?t=ZTHD9TxHpp1i6j3_WfkVag&s=19

1. More seriously, I now believe that action needs to be taken against a man who has sued approx 40 ppl., gotten four ppl. (that I know of) arrested, made 16 complaints to my friend's Inn, complained about my counsel, bought my wife's Grant of Probate ...

Why do they always say "myself" and not "me". Anyway, that's an uncharacteristically informative message for this bunch of clowns.

Agree. Action now.

But, wah, wah, wah, what if we ignore him and a fairy dies?