Yet more police idiocy.

[Imnobody4]

https://twitter.com/moveincircles/status/1689341024290607106?t=PlSPnePhEVLMVBfRD89aRA&s=19

This shows the arrest of a teenage autistic girl by about 5 police officers. From what I can make out it is for a 'hate' crime. She apparently said a police officer was a Lesbian. Her Nan is a lesbian - that police officer is like my Nan.

I cannot comprehend the mindset of these officers.

The Louise Badman case is jaw dropping, in what context whatsoever would the conduct of the Police be proportionate? I suspect it was a slow night for the coppers involved and they went to her house to pass the time. Or they were stupid enough to think 'Badman' was a description.

I hope the money helps with her recovery.

I hope the apology and settlement of the civil proceedings will rebuild her confidence in the police and start the healing process. said DCC Bacon

But it won't, will it? Of course it won't. The police officers involved and those making the decision that a woman saying hurty words on twitter is cause to rough her up and imprison her without human rights (e.g. her medication) have not been disciplined or sacked. So it's bound to happen again.

What those police officers did was criminal. If members of the public did that, they'd be arrested for assault and imprisonment. The reasons for the 'arrest' were always rubbish and clearly so. Abusers in the police think their job gives them the license to do illegal things and abuse women, and it seems they're right to think that.

Good for her for speaking out.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that Carrick and Couzens are pretty good exemplars of a lot of police officers, albeit at the extreme end. But Couzens was probably escalating for years before he ended up committing murder. After the non-response to his flashing in Mcdonalds presumably he thought he could do literally anything and get away with it.

He was escalating for years and his colleagues all knew about him. They nicknamed him "Rapist". God knows how many more there are just like him that are being shielded by their disgraceful mates.

They are shielded by their mates but they are also shielded by the system. That's the problem.

But how can that sensibly happen without taking resources away from elsewhere? Do we really want the police shelving rape and assault cases because they have to hit that 100% target on shoplifting?

They can stop pursuing people for rude social media posts, that'll free up a lot of time.

All the time spent on twitter, countless conferences listening to LGBTQ etc "allies" talking... and talking... and talking.... Meetings to discuss rainbow flags, cars, lanyards etc. From the dodgy College of Policing thinking up toxic hate crime policies / policy development enabling male officers who claim to be women to search women, meetings with Stonewall and the countless other trans lobby groups & on and on and on.

Collectively they must be wasting millions of ££££ on officer time / resources on all this. Banning police officers holding all these LGBT etc positions that bear no relation to policing and spending their time & tax payer's money on all this would I suspect redirect significant time and ££ to doing their actual job and serving the community.

Great post.

We are hearing that NHS doctors spend at least three bloody weeks a year being trained on how to talk to trans people.

The police will be spending even longer.

Wow, really? I had no idea. I bet they don't spend half that time in training in relation to the other protected characteristics put together!

I can categorically state that we don't spend 3 weeks a year on being trained on how to talk to trans people.

I have never had any such training.

That'll be because you aren't a doctor in the NHS.

I know I am not - but the suggestion was that "...The police will be spending even longer..."

We were recently inspected by the CQC. The only patient group they asked about were trans patients. No interest whatsoever in vulnerable adults, child safeguarding, people with disabilities or - god forbid - cervix-havers.

Aren't the CqC captured by Stonewall? Stonewall were outed moaning to Ofsted when they were in the Diversity champion protection racket that they weren't talking to little children in primary schools often enough about trans issues. Someone got hold of the letters and Ofsted hurriedly abandoned Stonewall.
Presumably in order to maintain their place in Stonewall's "rankings" the CQC have to focus on trans issues to the exclusion of all other vulnerable groups?

This could be useful,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/02/home-secretary-orders-review-into-political-activism-within-policing

“What’s crystallised it in my mind is meeting hundreds of rank and file cops who have said they’re fed up with the virtue signalling that some police leaders have been spending their time on, instead of focusing on back-to-basics crime.”
She's right.

There are plenty of us in the mental health profession who feel exactly the same about how politicised our profession has become.

I have little time for my membership organisation the BACP partly because of their failures to represent the interests of their members but also because their woke comic therapy today is a politicised joke.

Even five years ago it was a useful resource for CPD articles and now it's just choc full of utter nonsense. All of my fellow professionals agree and we all just chuck it straight in the bin now.

I think it was on this thread. The DM has done an article on the lady who was doorstepped by West Yorkshire (lesbian nan) Police for photographing a terfy sticker. I don't like their statement at the end, have they recorded a NCHI against her?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12473521/Retired-social-worker-quizzed-hate-crime-police-sticker-Stand-Trans-poster.html

I don't like their statement at the end, have they recorded a NCHI against her?

That's what it reads like.

So much for the new CoP guidance that says the police should use common sense (do they have any?!) when it comes to NCHIs. And that they should contact suspected wrongthinkers in the least intrusive way, like over the phone or email, instead of turning up at their homes or place of work.

Looks like updating the guidance was just for show, and the police are going to carry on being bully boys for butthurt blokes.

The DM's take on Braverman's review of Police Activism

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12473729/Braverman-woke-cops-review-political-activism.html

This statement from Tiffany Lynch of the Police Federation is infuriating

Tiffany Lynch, deputy chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: 'Policing should never be put on any political agenda and is too important to be kicked around like a political football.
'Our members want to go out there and serve communities in the best way possible, but need help when the Government constantly changes the goal posts.
'One minute they want police officers to be more involved, the next, they want them to act like robots.'

Because, of course, those are the only options; involved or a robot. Also, note the use of 'political agenda'. I thought that is exactly the problem, the Police taking sides in 'political agendas'?

Tiffany Lynch and Co would do better to actually properly represent their rank and file officers, instead of wibbling on. There's a lot I'd criticise Bravermann for, but I'm with her on this.

The Police Federation, nationally, is a joke amongst their own membership. Just one recent example.

National Officers refused to put up a fight for their younger members when there were changes made to the Pension scheme.Would not represent them. Basically, happy to sell them down the river.

Those ordinary members had to organise at grass roots level to go to Leigh Day Solicitors to take forward a challenge to the changes based on Age Discrimination - which they won.

The members then, via Leigh Day, took their own Federation to an Employment Tribunal for failing to represent them ( and being economical with the truth along the way, as noted in the Tribunal decision)

In June this year, the Judgment of the Tribunal was that: the police officers claims of Direct Age Discrimination and Victimisation by their own Trade Union, were upheld.

I don't think I've ever read such a damning Tribunal criticism of a staff association failing to represent it's members.

The Respondents “conduct was particularly egregious given that it was the Claimants’ own staff association, whose very purpose was to protect their rights and interests”

So Tiff Lynch can huff and puff all she likes. In reality, it's the Fed at National level continually shitting on it's membership and not listening to them.

Between all this "ally" malarkey, poor leadership, cosy empire building, corrupt and criminal officers, and their own union failing to represent them, I can well understand why the decent cops keep leaving the job. It is institutionally rotten to the core.

@LarkLane that's outrageous. Any speculation as to why they behaved like that? Has there been or will there be any consequences for the people responsible?

Might be time to encourage police leadership to speak at length, uninterrupted and unfiltered. They are bound to vomit a shitload of brilliant sunshine

“The members then, via Leigh Day, took their own Federation to an Employment Tribunal for failing to represent them ( and being economical with the truth along the way, as noted in the Tribunal decision).”

How did they take their trade union to Employment Tribunal if they weren’t employed by them? Do ET’s look at cases where there isn’t an employer/ employee relationship? Have you got a link to the judgement?