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.

And teachers aren't allowed to physically prevent children leaving premises.

Since when?!

What tests can you put in place that would foresee a future murder?
And if so, why don't we use these in other jobs?

You can certainly assess someone's attitude both in interview and during training. What level of assessment is there? It can't be that great judging on the recent incidents and not just Wayne Couzens and this latest officer - what about the ones recently jailed who were in a WhatsApp group with Wayne? What about the ones who took the photos at the crime scene of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman? What about annual assessments? No way could these officers be completely hiding their attitude whilst at work. Look at the article about Gwent Police - numerous complaints made by other serving officers against those abusive ones, clearly a pattern and what happened? Fuck all.

Yes potential police recruits should be vetted, they always used to be and that included their families.

Look at the fall-out after Ian Huntley and the changes made after that, the lack of sharing information was pointed out. In Wayne Couzen's case the same happened information available was not shared - this is basic stuff, stringent checks need to be made on those given the power of being a police officer.

So OK then, the next victim I deal with for any sort of job - if they have previous convictions against them for being dishonest - you want me to ignore their report then?

What you seem to be having difficulty understanding is the difference between someone reporting a crime in general (eg "I've had my purse stolen") and someone making a specific allegation against an individual. Can you really not see the difference between a prostitute saying she's been beaten up, or had money stolen from her, and a known criminal claiming that a priest's wife is using a pseudonymous account to be mean about him on social media? Because in the latter case, it is quite obvious that the accusation is going to cause the woman in question a lot of distress and inconvenience. It is also the case that the accuser - the known criminal with convictions for violent assault and sexual assault as well as fraud - has no evidence whatsoever. Isn't there any attempt at all to think critically about the case, and think, "Hmm, perhaps this isn't what it seems?"

Because in your scenario, any old Joe can just make up accusations against people they've got a grudge against and the police will investigate them.

But what really gets me about all this is that what you're saying isn't even true. We know quite well that when a woman makes a rape complaint, the police very often don't take her seriously, and do their best to persuade her to drop the case. Hence the absolutely tiny rate of reported rape cases that lead to conviction.

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.

oh stop it. You know what the problem is but you seem very invested in preserving the status quo. And you KNOW we are talking about people with actual records here, not some "oh well it was 35 in a 30 zone" shit.

My opinion of the UK police - whatever force - is at an all time low. There are some police officers who post on here who make a good case for some of the events. You? not so much. You don't actually seem willing to address any of the needs for change.

I don't know what schools you are referring to but all the schools in my county mean a child is unable to leave the premises due to locked gates, codes etc. This also stops adults who should not be on school premises wandering in.

Suggest if children just 'wander out' then you do your job and report the school for breaching basic safeguarding measures. No teacher is going to disagree with that action.

Yes and thanks for the live action lesson in how to demonstrate what arrogant self serving people some police officers can be.

I don't think it needs saying after the latest demonstration but advance searching users is often enlightening in seeing a pattern of posting. Faux naivety about certain situations that they have previously posted on can be clearly seen. If posters really are police officers it is disgusting that they deny that crimes against women are minimised/not investigated or victim blaming occurs while simultaneously posting on threads where a women is reporting exactly that experience of the police. On searching one posters name I found a thread from a woman reporting that it has taken a year, and numerous queries from her, for police to follow up an attack in which her partner tried to kill her. In that follow up call the police were dismissive, made her feel like the accused and made it clear she was being investigated.

Anyone else wonder whether a police officer repeatedly posting such tone deaf posts on a feminist board is doing so during work time?

Royalcorgi see the thread referenced above for exactly that re rape/domestic violence victims

I wasn’t aware, as I have already said. Thank you to those who took the time to list the names of women abused by the police and put under false arrest.

it didn't stop you posting several times that it doesn't happen though. You're not in the police,are you?

@Felix125

So we constantly just ignore any report they make from now on
So, if they end up dead or seriously assaulted, who's fault's that then?
"Well the police didn't take any of their reports seriously........lessons will have to be learned"

You posted this reply in the conversation about the woman who had all her IT confiscated and was in a police cell for (I think) 13 hours on the say so of a serial-reporter of women for this kind of thing. This man makes a flipping living, i suspect, of using the poilice to get his own back on women (for whatever reason) for existing or something.

Your reply came after someone pointed out the case of a woman who was fucking fined for reporting her ex for harassing her AND THEN HE FUCKING KILLED HER.

And you post disingenuous shit like this?? And you wonder why we think that you are a) tone deaf (personally and the force) and b) you are (the force as a whole) not fit for purpose.

You are, frankly, beyond belief. You, if you really are on the force, should be one of the ones being weeded out. Countless women on here posting about things and you're being belittling and condescending and basically ignoring things.

Good example when someone mentions people being arrested or having a police visit for posting memes. We all know what goes on, but in your disingenuous way it's all "there's no law about tweeting" WE KNOW. JFC

Often.

That would be a start. Or maybe actually investigate their behaviour. Which is an absolute pisstake of the legal system

VestofAbsurdity
OK then, you have a annual assessment on someone, how are you going to find out that they intend to put misogynistic comments on Whatsapp - what questions are you going to ask to find this out then? What questions are you going to ask in an annual appraisal to suggest that a person will go on to commit murder?

And if its that easy - why don't they do that in other jobs

But I agree - more stringent checks need to be done - that's why i said we should use intelligence gathered on people to vet them. But most people in here were against that.

Any offences committed and you're gone - but will that be the same in other professions? The delivery driver caught doing 35 in a 30 - being a professional driver and all that?

Tallisker
So a child who is walking out of school threatening to commit suicide is just allowed to walk out - teachers can't do anything to stop them?
Teacher just allows them to walk out - no concerns
No duty of care or safeguarding to consider?
Instead just pass it on to the police

And you think this is acceptable?

And, since you accusing me of being dismissive - which posts are you referring to?

RoyalCorgi
So the "known criminal claiming that a priest's wife is using a pseudonymous account" - what did they actually report? Presumably if this has lead to an arrest there must be an offence (harassment, mal comms). So they you are - a specific allegation against someone, just like a purse has been stolen. How do you know there is no evidence whatsoever from what they are alleging unless you investigate?

But instead, your suggesting that we look at the accusers past record and assume they are lying.

OK then, lets go with that. How many convictions of a dishonesty offence can we use to say a person is lying when ever they make a report to police? 5, 10?

How about if they have a history of making allegations which never get a prosecution at court - can we use these against them too?

But what really gets me about all this is that what you're saying isn't even true. We know quite well that when a woman makes a rape complaint, the police very often don't take her seriously, and do their best to persuade her to drop the case. Hence the absolutely tiny rate of reported rape cases that lead to conviction.

And where is your evidence of this then? Where I have ever said it 'isn't even true'?
Where do we 'do our best to get her to drop the case'?

Brefugee
So what do you suggest
I am suggesting any offences that have been committed by an officer mean a dismissal. And any intelligence to suggest that they are part of any misogynistic group etc can be used against them. Regular vetting whilst serving to ensure this is kept up to date.

Do you agree, disagree - or do you have anything to add to make it better and more water tight?

How am i belittling people on here

I am not denying that horrendous issues happen in the police
I am trying to make you see that there is often a bigger picture to some of these incidents at the reporting stage.

So perhaps you can answer the points I am raising - How many convictions of a dishonesty offence can we use to say a person is lying when ever they make a report to police?

TenPointsFromHufflepuff
You don't think kids can climb over fences? Run through the car parks?

MrsOvertonsWindow
No - days off or between shifts

I am not denying that horrendous issues happen in the police
I am trying to make you see that there is often a bigger picture to some of these incidents at the reporting stage.

more patronising condescending twaddle. I'm out.
I will continue to have a very low opinion of the police and hope that i never need them. I have no confidence they will be more of a help than a hindrance

Can't believe you lasted that long @brefugee...I'm at home sick so bored and spent a little time looking at posters histories...you were one of the first to point out some twaddle when a certain poster started posting thinly veiled mra posts back in August 2021

I rarely remember poster's names, i prefer to engage with a message.
but it is astounding, tbh.
(glad i'm not in the UK that often, tbh)

They'd have to get out the building first to climb over fences or run through carparks.
I'm starting to.think you are from the actual fifties. What you describe is nothing like actual conditions of modern day.
Your attitude certainly fits in with that time period anyway.

OK then, you have a annual assessment on someone, how are you going to find out that they intend to put misogynistic comments on Whatsapp - what questions are you going to ask to find this out then? What questions are you going to ask in an annual appraisal to suggest that a person will go on to commit murder?

Their misogynistic, racist and homophobic attitudes won't be confined to WhatsApp as has proven to be the case in Gwent and that police station in London - the culture was well known ffs.

Women have been killed by at least 15 serving or former police officers in the UK since 2009, new figures reveal

Now I've searched and searched and can find no reports of police officers murdering women in the decades - 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. I am sure you will enlighten me forthwith if there are any that you know about/can find.

So, to conclude - what is different about the processes in recruitment, training and annual assessment in those decades that they managed not to employ and retain women murdering bastards? There must be something.

And if its that easy - why don't they do that in other jobs

No-one said it is easy, why would it be? What's the matter don't like doing the tough stuff? It's a little bit more of a problem if you have police murderers don't you think being as they are the ones tasked with upholding the Law?

But I agree - more stringent checks need to be done - that's why i said we should use intelligence gathered on people to vet them. But most people in here were against that.

As I said earlier they used to do that to both the applicant and their families previously.

Any offences committed and you're gone - but will that be the same in other professions? The delivery driver caught doing 35 in a 30 - being a professional driver and all that?

Agree. Immediately sacked - do not pass Go, do not collect £200. Delivery drivers working for firms are/have been sacked for speeding and let's just remember that the public are not paying out of their taxes for those drivers unlike police officers who are funded from the public purse. Self employed drivers which an awful lot of them are, well I suppose they could sack themselves but think it's unlikely don't you?

Police officers should be held to and uphold a higher standard than the rest of the public, the public give their consent to be policed by them, that consent can be withdrawn and it will be if they do not uphold and maintain the highest standards. You have to practice what you preach.

TenPointsFromHufflepuff
A lot of schools have a number of buildings and pupils move from one building to another during lesson changes. So, they often leave the buildings into the outdoor to get to their next lesson. Outdoor PE lessons still occur. Break times and lunch times offer other opportunities. The car parks are not closed off as they often have visitors, parents etc attending schools. Do you think all schools have it so children are contained in one building from 9 - 3 every day?

We get them going missing, not too often thankfully, but we get kids that manage to walk off school premises and become high risk missing from homes due to what they have threatened before leaving.

Brefugee
So you can't answer the points then to enter the debate to move things forward.
And you just see things as read - never another point of view to consider or a back story to what has happened.

The victim of one incident can be classed as a liar and the police should ignore them. Yet, the victim in another incident with a similar back ground must be believed.

Common sense policing should be adopted when dealing with victims to establish if the police should take them seriously or not - but no one will define what that means exactly.

VestofAbsurdity
So, how are you going to pick them out.
Are you assuming that all murders are going to post things on social media before the act, or have a history of posting things.

I have repeatedly said on here, anyone breaking the law, has convictions, has intelligence against them should be gone.

But then people argue against me, stating that intelligence on someone should not be used against them - only convictions.

So if I have information that a cop on my shift is posting messages on social media aligning himself to a certain group - can i disclose it? Posters on here say i shouldn't

I say I should.

If you sack every police officer today and start again - what would you do to ensure popper vetting takes place?
And of the 200,000 police officers you need to recruit, can this vetting process guarantee that none of them will ever commit offences?

Christ this is like pulling teeth - the point being made is why are there women murdering bastard police officers in the police service now when there (as far as I can ascertain) were not in previous decades. Clearly there has to be a difference in either recruitment, training, assessment, culture, personnel or all the above something has changed. And there was NO fucking social media in several of those decades so using that as some kind of 'gotcha', is beyond pathetic.

Is that clear enough for you?

So if I have information that a cop on my shift is posting messages on social media aligning himself to a certain group - can i disclose it? Posters on here say i shouldn't
I say I should.

Would you have reported the messages in the WhatsApp group of those officers who were jailed? If not, why not? Would you have reported those officers who took the photos of Bibaa Smallman and Nicole Henry? If not, why not?

Yes you should report your colleagues for appalling behaviour, potential criminal activity, corruption, alignments that are not conducive to impartial policing - why wouldn't you?

Wasn't Wayne Cousins known colloquially as 'the rapist'?

Big fucking clue there I'd suggest.

VestofAbsurdity
Good - I'm glad we agree that I should report appalling behaviour. And yes i would have reported the messages in the whatsapp group and the photos being taken of crime scenes as its clearly wrong.

I would report it

But others on here state that such intelligence on people should not be used against them.

There would have been murders in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc - they were just not publicised as they are now. Are you trying to suggest that the police force in the 60s, 70s, 80s had no corruption?

So you still haven't answered how you will pick them out during the recruitment process - these murdering police officers.

AlisonDonut
And at what point should he have been kicked out or arrested?
As soon as the nickname was used against him?