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 brought up the 'bisexual' point - did you not?

If you are a biological male, you will not be given the task to search a biological female. Custody will take this into consideration when searches are being done.

They will be plenty of staff in custody who will not be 'trans' to perform the searches.

No I did not. And this report says otherwise about searches:

https://www.standingforwomen.com/files/ugd/1b54b44_be4532b6a2dc419e90c090dbfc8f6868.pdf

ResisterRex
You did bring it up - your post:

ResisterRex · Yesterday 17:22
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.

So the report makes clear that under PACE provisions the person being searched:

"....the person should be asked what gender they consider themselves to be. If they express a preference to be dealt with as a particular gender, they should be asked to indicate and confirm their preference by signing the custody record or, if a custody record has not been opened, the search record or the officer’s notebook. If the person is unwilling to express a preference as in (i) above, efforts should be made 7 Report on NHS and Police Accommodation for the Provision of Female-Only Services to determine their predominant lifestyle and they should be treated as such. For example, if they appear to live predominantly as a woman, they should be treated as being female. if none of the above apply, the person should be dealt with according to what reasonably appears to have been their sex as registered at birth..."

So, its the person being searched who dictates who does the searches

And as a male officer - i will not be tasked by custody to conduct a strip search of a female.

It is the trans woman part of that sentence that is the issue.

Totally surprised to know you still don't get it.

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!”

The police don’t stand up for LGBTQ+ people. Where are you getting that idea from? They’re also institutionally homophobic and transphobic.

Yes I was accurately reflecting what was said in the video. My point is then about males searching females. Which you know but chose to misinterpret as though it's some gotcha. It isn't.

its the person being searched who dictates who does the searches

So males identifying as female can demand a female strip searches them then, and that poses no risk to female officers? The risk of self-ID goes both ways in custody, as your selective quoting of that report shows. The report also says:

Of the police forces queried, none stated that it offered any restrictions on male officers who identify as transgender preventing them from conducting intimate searches on females. One force answered that it recognised that an intimate search in custody “cannot be done by a person of the opposite sex” but did clarify if it understands what sex means or if “sex” is “gender” or “gender identity” as is common within many forces. The reasons for this seem to be contained within the conflicting police guidelines where the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) makes clear such searches must be made by an officer of the same sex, the annexes, however, this becomes entirely muddled where “gender” overrides “sex” or is often confused with “sex” as a category.

PACE is clear. The annexes and guidance are not.

AlisonDonut
I do get it and answered it. But the word 'bisexual' is mentioned in the post, despite ResisterRex saying that they did not bring it up. I didn't bring it up - they brought it up.

So surly if its brought up it can be discussed?

ResisterRex
I have never been sent to search a female.

No - they can't demand, where i have said that. Their views are taken into consideration as to dictate who searches, they can't demand.

There may be no restrictions in PACE, but it doesn't mean to say its happening - unless you can show otherwise.

Of the police forces queried, none stated that it offered any restrictions on male officers who identify as transgender preventing them from conducting intimate searches on females - so if the detainee is a male who identifies as a female, can this be used to conduct a search here?

So effectively, you will have a biological male searching a biological male who identifies as a female. But your suggesting the force should have restrictions on them to prevent this from happening. So, the biological male detainee (who identifies as a female) should be only searched by a female officer...?

Even if you have a biological male officer who identifies as a female, the search parameters are taken into consideration by custody and the detainees views will be addressed.

Unless, you can quote otherwise, i don't think there has been an example of a male officer who identifies as a female conducting a strip search of a female detainee.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10703327/Women-strip-searched-trans-officers-born-male-say-police.html

New guidelines issued to forces around the country state: 'Chief Officers are advised to recognise the status of transgender colleagues from the moment they transition, considered to be, the point at which they present in the gender with which they identify.

'Thus, once a Transgender colleague has transitioned, they will search persons of the same gender as their own lived gender.'

The controversial advice, issued by the National Police Chief's Council (NPCC) — the body representing British police chiefs — says it may be 'advisable' to replace the person carrying out the search if the detainee objects, but adds: 'If the refusal is based on discriminatory views, consideration should be given for the incident [to] be recorded as a non-crime hate incident unless the circumstances amount to a recordable crime.'

The existence of the guidance, which was quietly issued in December, has only come to light following the intrepid work of Cathy Larkman, a police officer for over 30 years who rose to the rank of superintendent before retiring last year.

Mrs Larkman, 54, grew increasingly concerned with the declining trust women had in the police following a spate of scandals including the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer.

Last October, responding to fears among some women that they had no option over the sex of the officer searching them, she wrote letters to the College of Policing, the Police Federation and the NPCC seeking clarification that this was not the case.

The mother-of-three, who is being supported by the Women's Rights Network campaign group, knew that under existing law strip-searches had to be carried out by an officer of the same sex.

But she was left 'absolutely gobsmacked' when the NPCC finally released its new guidance to her last week.

I really hope it is not happening. If you're in the Federation, please get them to take this up because currently, it seems it can happen and if you object, you will be the one in trouble. They are, after all, asking for your views: twitter.com/PFEW_HQ/status/1590388754912489472

MSM has covered this issue of searches and national policy:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10703327/Women-strip-searched-trans-officers-born-male-say-police.html

"Mrs Larkman fears the new guidance threatens women's right to single-sex spaces. 'It tells you everything you need to know about what chief officers are thinking at the moment and where their priorities lie. Sadly, it's not with women, she said.
'The NPCC like to talk about reducing violence among women and girls but this just makes you think they are hollow words. There is no concern for women here whatsoever.'
...
"Mrs Larkman fears the new guidance will put female officers in a difficult position.
'If they are searching biological males who self-identify as women they will be under a lot of pressure to just go along with it and keep quiet because they could be disciplined for refusing,' she said."

And according to KPSS, the situation is far from clear but it could be saved:

twitter.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1590792862404595713?s=46&t=mT4gfG8-plfiR0WETvMLBQ
"I believe the Met abstained on the vote & not all of the remaining forces have yet implemented this policy, even though they voted to do so."

This is interesting from the West Yorkshire Federation, which Fair Cop retweeted:

twitter.com/wearefaircop/status/1591148857580199938?s=46&t=o3z2D-Jbowi7Pp10kyC7MQ

www.polfed.org/westmids/latest-news/2022/we-would-love-nothing-more-than-a-return-to-common-sense-policing/

"Responding to her remarks, Rich said: “I don’t think you’ll find many Police Federation members who don’t want to focus on common sense policing. I agree with the Home Secretary; there is a ‘woke’ mindset at the top that leads to much time wasted discussing, for example, ‘critical race theory’ or ‘white privilege’ or whether there should be extra categories of hate crimes.
“I say leave all that to the academics and politicians. Police officers should focus on stopping the crime and violence which disproportionately affects our young, diverse communities using the laws laid down to the maximum effect – for example, stop and search.
“The vast majority of police officers join the Force through a desire to help others, keep their communities safe, investigate crime and catch the bad guys."

ResisterRex
We have done the 'woke' issues preventing the police from investigating crimes on another thread:

How significant is this report that claims the public feels police officers are "more interested in being woke than solving crimes"?

In essence, each day, we will get 500-1000 jobs requiring police. Of these a tiny proportion will be 'woke' type things. These will drop down the event queue, leaving the emergencies at the top.
The fact that we can't progress any of the crimes we have to deal with will not be because of the woke jobs on the queue - these will be few and far between.
The reason we constantly have no one free to deal with crime is through safeguarding issues which deplete the resources available.

So DV victims, suicidal people, missing from homes - all carry a risk and have to be safeguarded. For example, a suicidal missing from home can not be just left at the hospital for treatment in case they go missing again. You will need the police to remain with them. Prisoners from custody who need hospital treatment will need guarding or cell watching etc etc

Imnobody4
Unless, you can quote otherwise, i don't think there has been an example of a male officer who identifies as a female conducting a strip search of a female detainee.

So I guess custody suites can manage searches by using other staff available so it doesn't become an issue

Are you saying that all domestice abuse and burglaries were solved in one county of the UK which meant the non crime of not posting memes on a website meant two police officers were now in a position to arrest a mother of 4 for not posting these memes?

Or are you saying she imagined it?

I mean if the crimes have all been solved in one county that's great.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying there is a hierarchy of crimes and police must investigate and solve them in that order? So, say murder is #1, does that mean all other crimes are left not being policed at all until every murder is solved? Even murder cases from twenty years ago? So because an unidentified body was found on the moor in 1983 with no leads, therefore all rapes, DV, robberies, drugs dealing and so on for the past forty years can’t be worked on by the police until that 1983 murder is solved?

So I guess custody suites can manage searches by using other staff available so it doesn't become an issue

So why don't the Police just issue guidelines which make it clear that no female police officer will ever be asked to search a biological male person, no matter their gender identity, and no female suspect will ever be strip searched by a biologically male officer, even if that officer identifies as a woman. Simple!

So why don't the Police just issue guidelines which make it clear that no female police officer will ever be asked to search a biological male person, no matter their gender identity, and no female suspect will ever be strip searched by a biologically male officer, even if that officer identifies as a woman. Simple!

They could. But one-day headline-grabbers to give the impression they're doing something for women are easier than saying no to predatory men, aren't they?

Anti-terror chief accused of ‘woke stunt’ on menopause

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6e438874-61f6-11ed-80da-2c56e60527b0?shareToken=67004c69524bc437650f0b1cb38b3ae3

Exactly. Repeating 'trust me I'm a police officer' is a strange kind of argument to use to women who have lost all respect and trust in the integrity, intelligence and competence of the police.

Felix is saying that the woke crimes run to the end of the list when he said:

In essence, each day, we will get 500-1000 jobs requiring police. Of these a tiny proportion will be 'woke' type things. These will drop down the event queue, leaving the emergencies at the top.

So following that line of 'thought' surely all crimes must be solved before non crimes are even looked at?

AlisonDonut
The reason we can't get to most crimes is a resourcing issue and too much emphasis being placed on safeguarding to leave any resources free.

As I said before - everything is graded on threat, harm & risk. So the 'thought' or 'Woke' incidents on social media would slide down the event queue as not being as important to say an ongoing domestic violence incident , which i get sent to. Once I'm at this DV case, that's me written off for hours - or perhaps the entire shift. Pretty soon, the demand outstrips the resources. The 'thought' crime will be gotten too eventually - or may be passed to a crime car or similar who soaks up such crimes which have sat on the queue for weeks without having anyone free to deploy. So, the mother of 4 posting things will not be as higher priority as an incoming emergency obviously. But its a job which will need to be looked at eventually based on what ever the job is and how its initially deemed to be dealt with - written off at source or something that needs further investigation.

Cops are fully aware of this and will 'write off' jobs quickly which do not merit any further police involvement - its just not worth their time to spend on it. So if its a job that someone has tied a yellow ribbon to a tree or someone has said on YouTube that peadophiles are not very nice - it won't merit any action, unless there is something more to it. We are not going to give ourselves tons of extra work when we don't need to - and can't anyway.

For me - its a resource thing which is the main reason why police forces are struggling to get to jobs. Everything now has to be risk assessed & safe guarded. vulnerable people have to be watched whilst mental health teams can organise an assessment team, missing children from care homes are automatically classed as medium/high risk missing people if they don't come back to their care home by 9pm. And every night its the same 5-6 who go missing - and they of course learn where not to go to be caught by CCTV, police etc etc

This is where your police response resources are - not embroiled in ribbons being tied to a tree.

Its not a case of everything being solved before we move onto the next one - it depends on the incoming incidents. Not all incidents that we deal with are crimes - sudden deaths, missing from homes, car crashes. Or are crimes which a solvable - thefts with no lines of enquiry to prove who has done it.

334bu
You could write guidelines to say that - but what if you have a male who states he has a knife on him or a needle down his boxers and you only have female staff available? Wait until you can ind male officers to search and hope nothing goes wrong - or do you leave a window open to say that in certain circumstances, females can search a male to remove such dangerous items? And of course vice/versa.

So far, custody appears to manage this issue and not have incidents where a male officer who is identifying as a female has been asked to search a female detainee - unless you can show an example of where this has happened.

So all safeguarding and crimes were all resolved in one county in England recently then. What a relief. Surely that should be celebrated somewhere?

It would be historic no?

Letby is still on trial. Innocent until proved guilty, Felix.

that’s quite a poor and possibly libellous comparison

AlisonDonut
Did i say they were all resolved?
Can you not see that more and more jobs keep coming in and you have to take each one on its merits as to whether they will be solvable. And each one will have to find a place in the current job pending queue.

What about missing kids from care homes who just go missing again as soon as you take them back - are these ever 'solvable'. Or suicidal people who have no mental health conditions, but keep phoning police to say they are going to commit suicide?

Allthegoodnamesarechosen
Did i say she was guilty?

Did i say they were all resolved? Can you not see that more and more jobs keep coming in and you have to take each one on its merits as to whether they will be solvable. And each one will have to find a place in the current job pending queue.

You said that woke stuff falls down the queue. So either woke stuff is only done once everything more important is done, or woke stuff is done before everything else is done. It can't be both. I'm using your logic here, in which you tell us woke stuff doesn't happen. And as it did happen, it must surely mean everything else must have been sorted.

Can you not follow simple logic?

AlisonDonut
'Woke' stuff is only done once everything more important is done.

But what's your definition of 'done'

It doesn't mean that everything has to be solved. So you might have an emergency that's comes in where a child has gone missing. Police attend the address and find the child hiding under a bed at the address. Safeguarding addressed at the home and that unit then becomes free. Is there any other current emergencies for that unit to be sent to or is that unit free to take a job from the event queue.

Or, that unit might be sent to a DV emergency - DV assault for example. On arrival, suspect has made off and victim has no injuries. Safeguarding addressed for the victim, suspect has fled and arrest attempts/area search has not located them. If you have safeguarded your victim, then this crime drops onto the officers crime queue to purse the matter over the next few weeks. So that unit becomes free. Is there any other current emergencies for that unit to be sent to or is that unit free to take a job from the event queue.

That unit might then get sent to a theft as being the next most significant job on the queue. Suspect gone, no idea who it might be but its captured on the shops CCTV. This can be collected at a later date as the manager will need to be there to download it. Or it could be that this job can be closed as undetected as there is no realistic prospect of identifying the suspect (No CCTV in the shop for example or witnesses). If there is, that job drops onto the officers crime queue to purse the matter over the next few weeks. So that unit becomes free. Is there any other current emergencies for that unit to be sent to or is that unit free to take a job from the event queue. This event queue may also give that officer more jobs to investigate over the next few weeks.

And so on and so forth.

So that officer then has to jostle their own crime queue which leads onto future arrests, interviews, case files, CPS liaisons to investigate the jobs they have picked up. But incoming emergencies will take priority over them. If the emergencies lead to arrests, then once the suspect has been interviewed & bailed, that then drops back to the officer's queue to progress the case further over the proceeding weeks.

They sometimes also have crime cars - so that officer will have a day tasked to them where they will be allocated jobs from the event queue to sort out. They can not be used for emergencies unless there is absolutely no one else. This is used to get to the jobs on the event queue that we are struggling to get to. But the amount of 'woke' jobs on this queue will be tiny compared to everything else that's on there (frauds, harassments, coercive control, OBV, modern slavery etc etc)

So very quickly, officers end up with a boat load of jobs on their own queue as well as dealing with the incoming emergencies or jobs with high threat, harm, risk.

So you will never have a time when everything is 'done' as more & more jobs keep coming in and your crime queue keeps getting bigger and bigger.