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.

It's a pity we can't talk about it without a police officer policing our opinions about the police.

The Police in the UK (as an entity) are institutionally racist and misogynistic -

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/12/uk-police-leaders-debate-public-admission-institutional-racism

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/16/institutional-misogyny-erodes-womens-trust-in-uk-police

The Met Force seem, in particular, to have institutional cart blanche to behave appallingly -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63277161

The Forces in some specific areas and many individual Police Officers may well be lovely but it surely can't come as a surprise that the Police (as an entity) are viewed with suspicion and mistrust.

I don’t think people are tarnishing every individual officer?

they’re noting that the institution as an entity has some serious issues

For those who are familiar with ILGA, this is concerning:

https://twitter.com/wearefaircop/status/1590116300470521857?s=46&t=l9-Q2dAZfN88rCAP6kfDnQ

Noting Bernard, it might seem to indicate that the institution as an entity has some serious issues.

FernlovingNodosaur
Felix, sorry but those jailed Met officers and those mentioned by ResisterRex represent the reality of the UK police force today
I don't think they do provide a fair reflection - there are about 200,000 officers in the UK and you will always have people who are corrupt in any profession - but to say its reflective of all 200,000 is a bit wide of the mark.

AlisonDonut
I'm not policing it - I'm agreeing with a lot of what is said
Am i not allowed to comment on a thread?
Or can I only comment so long as i agree with everything you say - not much of a discussion then is it?

ResisterRex
Noting Bernard, it might seem to indicate that the institution as an entity has some serious issues.
That's a support group within the police, not the police as an entity.

Here's a previous thread on why ILGA should be nowhere near "support group" in law enforcement, however big or small that group is:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4215949-ILGA-Feminist-Declaration-Stonewall-Lowering-the-age-of-consent-to-10

Felix, but if those in charge of the police force keep hiding the bad officers behaviour, how do we actually know how many good officers are employed within that 200k? If Wayne Couzens had escape justice. He and his now jailed colleagues would almost certainly still be high ranking Met officers, even with vile Couzens previous criminal form. It was only because of the appalling crime of Sarah Everard's murder that sunshine was finally cast on his previous bad behaviour and that of his now jailed colleagues.

I agree - but not every police officer is a member of that group. In fact, its only a very small percentage - but i agree, we shouldn't be aligning to any organisation or charity

Its the same with wearing poppies or wearing pink or blue ribbons for cancer charities, or publicly raising money for them - it shouldn't be being done under the umbrella of the job

If they want to support a charity or raise money for it on your days off - then that's a different issue - but not at work

FernlovingNodosaur
I agree - he and the others should have been kicked out a long time ago.
That's why i personally say that anyone with any kind of offence - from assault to a minor speeding ticket - should be gone.

Just got this from the Metropolitan Police Twitter account.

No doubt you will tell us it doesn't happen, hasn't happened or shouldn't happen. And yet our eyes see it happening.

Its the same with wearing poppies or wearing pink or blue ribbons for cancer charities, or publicly raising money for them - it shouldn't be being done under the umbrella of the job

How do you feel about members of the armed forces wearing poppies?

Mind you - on the other debate we had about Woke issues & the police - most people agreed that we shouldn't use intelligence against people when going for jobs, only actual convictions. So would the same argument be true here? People were saying that we shouldn't be going down the 'Stazi' line
Also, speeding is speeding - its still an offence.
So if you were doing say 35 in a 30, it should be a dismissal, shouldn't it?

You're being disingenuous here. The fact is that you have abandoned necessary checks on new police officers and as a result, an already institutionally racist and misogynistic organisation has even more people who we need to be concerned about among their ranks.

At the very least if someone applied to the police, had a conviction (would they?) for doing 35 in a 30 zone 5 years ago - i would expect the vetting process to uncover that and a case-by-case decision made.

If it was 90 in a 30 zone, there were drugs related convictions, theft related convictions etc (as pp outlined above) i would expect them to be rejected out of hand.

You're in the force, you must know that it attracts an above average number of people on power trips. Your vetting process must be thorough and err on the side of caution. And seen to be doing that. And no wishy-washy excuses about one bad apple. It is dozens and dozens of them. And then all the others who stand by while it goes on.

You should be held to higher standards than others, for sure.

A cursory glance through police-related Twitter today:

twitter.com/attitudemag/status/1590037741751803904?s=46&t=F12ECblopxG9yE8kNtt1ng

"Queer" police officers announcing pronouns (no, "queer" is not in the Equality Act and yes, you'd think those engaged in social justice at work would trouble themselves with knowledge of the law). This has no place in policing and is in no way comparable to wearing a poppy, and never will be.

And the federation want to be asked questions:

twitter.com/pfew_hq/status/1590388754912489472?s=46&t=F12ECblopxG9yE8kNtt1ng

AlisonDonut
I did say that our force doesn't do it - the Met might, but we do not.

Shelefttheweb
That's up to that organisation - but we can't because of the 'issues' that it brings

Brefugee
Convictions, i agree with you as they are recorded as such. So 35 in a 30 would come up as such and should be used to dismiss. Its an offence.
But what if its just intelligence and no convictions has come from it - do we use it against the applicant?

ResisterRex
And what if people are against us wearing a poppy?
And which poppy do we wear - the red one, the white one, the black one, the purple one, the pink one?

Looks like we are wearing rainbow colours again - which is what your are against isn't it?

Convictions, i agree with you as they are recorded as such. So 35 in a 30 would come up as such and should be used to dismiss. Its an offence.
But what if its just intelligence and no convictions has come from it - do we use it against the applicant?

again disingenuous. The reports say that people with convictions for violence (for eg) are in the force because the force (as a whole) doesn't vet properly. I don't know how my comment wasn't clear but here we go:

if they are flagged up for having a conviction (spent or otherwise) the vetting officer needs to look what it was. 20 years ago 35 in a 30 zone, nothing since? fine, let them in, let them know you know about it and maybe discuss before they are finally recruited.

5 convictions, some within the last 5 years for "boy racer" types of things? theft? violence (especially against minorities)? Again you can look to see if there are mitigating circs, but that should be an automatic no.

Intelligence? Is it robust? I would normally say: no conviction no issue. But we all know that there are people who slip through the net. Don't you do f2f interviews? during the basic training aren't the recruiters paying attention? Yearly appraisals? there is scope to eject these too

I used to vet people in the military. To an excruciatingly high level on occasion. Have been deeply vetted myself. Those two examples above should be the absolute basics.

and it should be constant. I am assuming the police have yearly appraisal? if it comes up one year that there have been complaints of sexist comments or inappropriate behaviour? talk about it, it goes on record. The threshhold should be low for this. If it is something that would be actionable under regs or law: disiplinary process and possibly out of the force. There should be zero tolerance for it, and again police officers must and should be held to higher standards than joe public.

Shelefttheweb
That's up to that organisation - but we can't because of the 'issues' that it brings

That is a rather flippant reply to asking about poppies and the armed forces. Almost like you have no idea who sells the poppies or why. Just as a reminder they are sold by the Royal British Legion who provide support for members of the British armed forces, veterans and their families. Does that not seem something that it would be both reasonable and non-political for members of those self same armed forces to support?

Brefugee
I'm not being disingenuous - I am agreeing with you, that currently the vetting process is failing if it is allowing people to join the force with convictions or proven offences. They should not be allowed in the force - end of.

The case studies which were mentioned on page 2, detail incidents that the candidates were involved in that did not result in a prosecution; so they were not convicted. All i was asking is - do we use intelligence gathered on people to vet them? Its just in a previous thread, there was a clear tone that they should not be used and the police should not use such intelligence on people on deciding their employment.

Yes we do have yearly appraisals and the the recruits are heavily monitored during their training and for their subsequent 2 years probation - but will that stop people slipping through the net? Can a person keep below the radar in order to pursue what ever criminal thing they want to do whilst in the police?

Shelefttheweb
I know who sells the poppies and why - and outside of work i am happy to wear one and often put money into what ever collection is in front of me.

And yes, it seems perfectly reasonable for members of the armed forces to support them.

But our force doesn't due to various issues. For example, hardly any war memorial makes any reference to women who lost their lives in active service etc etc. So which poppy do we wear, the red one, the pink one, the white one...?

Felix125
I really do think you ought to remove your rose coloured spectacles. Willfull blindness is pretty common in all organisations, there is a huge difference in what people say and what they do.

From the report:
Challenging and reporting prejudicial and improper behaviour

Most police officers and staff told us they would recognise prejudicial and improper behaviour and knew how to report it. Conversely, some officers and staff who had personally experienced such behaviour told us it was often witnessed by colleagues, including supervisors. But they said that these colleagues rarely challenged it.

Many women told us they were used to tolerating a degree of such behaviour before reporting it. And many told us they were worried about the repercussions if they did make a report. They were concerned that they would be viewed as a troublemaker or be ostracised.

When (usually female) police officers and staff did report this behaviour, in most cases they were dissatisfied with the outcome.

I'm not disagreeing with you am I?

And it will be the same in a number of organisations for all people working in it

The response about poppies is such a reach. No comment on the "queer" police officers either. One of them in that video is a male who it would seem, works in custody (and identifies as a bisexual transwoman). Custody. Where females will be vulnerable and possibly strip searched.

will that stop people slipping through the net? Can a person keep below the radar in order to pursue what ever criminal thing they want to do whilst in the police?

it is not so much a net as a wide open gaping goal. And i am not seeing any evidence that anyone involved in the police is that invested in closing them. Including, but not restricted to "yeah but if there's no conviction..." (from an organisation that has arrested people for tweets)

ResisterRex
How do you mean - its such a reach?

So, are you are against some who is bi-sexual working in custody? What if they are gay, will they be OK to work in custody? What if the detainee is bi-sexual, who searches them then?

Brefugee
So, if its a wide open goal what do you suggest to close it. Do we use intelligence or not? Convictions - I agree with you. Any convictions against you should preclude you from joining. How can I justifiably police someone who is a thief if i have a conviction for a theft offence myself. Or how can I justifiably police someone for speeding if i have a speeding offence myself, regardless if its 35 in a 30.

You're not 'arrested for tweets'. The offence is harassment or mal comms. If they are convicted for any of these offences, then it will appear on a persons record. If they are not convicted, does this then become intelligence and if so, can the fact that they have been arrested & investigated be used against them when applying for the job?

If your suggesting that this is the case by commenting ".....Including, but not restricted to "yeah but if there's no conviction..." (from an organisation that has arrested people for tweets)..." Then it appears you are suggesting that intelligence can be used against them.

This then goes against what others stated in the previous thread (Are the police too woke) - where we shouldn't record intelligence on people that are not convictions and use them to preclude them from jobs - you can't have it both ways

Wow. A male identifying as a female working in custody isn't a problem?

ResisterRex
I didn't say that - and as a custody sergeant, they would nor be involved in the searches in any case

My question to you was - "So, are you are against some who is bi-sexual working in custody? What if they are gay, will they be OK to work in custody? What if the detainee is bi-sexual, who searches them then?"

You're dodging the issue. No one cares what someone's sexual orientation is. But females do care about being searched by males. It's against PACE, is it not?