Suella Braverman statement about police behaviour and TRA police officer response

[Truthlikeness]

I was heartened to see the letter to policing leaders published by the Home Secretary yesterday, reminding them of the importance of remaining politically neutral. She included reference to the heavy handed tactics used against GC women and their failure to take action against violent TRA threats. She also described the Progress flag as 'symbolising highly contested ideologies'.

Full letter here - https://twitter.com/suellabraverman/status/1697905696145092684?s=46&t=qrlGvkcRV2VhASm_7kkOnw

And the response from a serving police officer - rather neatly illustrating the need for the letter in the first place. I don't see how that can result in anything other than dismissal.

https://twitter.com/wearefaircop/status/1698034987826614582?s=46&t=qrlGvkcRV2VhASm_7kkOnw

I'm glad that Glinner will be still be speaking. I'd like to go and see him give that speech.

They have haven't they? Stonewall instruct the NHS what to call women, how to rename and eradicate women from maternity services & health care, instruct schools & everywhere else that males who require access to girls and women undressing, showering and even sleeping must be granted access and so on.

Unelected but with so much influence

Can’t get rid of them

MargotBamborough · Yesterday 14:28
OK Felix, riddle me this......

Because that what harassers do - they often do just enough to cause harassment, just to let the other person know that they are still there and haven't left them alone.

They won't go over the top - because that would be obvious to your 'reasonable person'.

So based on what the reporting person states, that its all linked and all part of the harassment and 'Margaret knew exactly what they were doing and did it to cause more harassment' - do the police just totally ignore it?

Or do they at least speak to all parties concerned to establish if a 'reasonable person' would find the behaviour harassing?

I have had plenty of experience with what CPS use as charging standards for harassment, convictions at court and victim's personal statements in relation to it - so you don't have to explain how to investigate harassment to me.

I take it as a lawyer you have never investigated harassment?

Felix, the legislation is very clear. It is not enough for someone to be upset. The behaviour has to be directed at a person, it has to be behaviour which a reasonable person would consider to be harassment, and it has to happen on at least two occasions.

None of those criteria are met in this situation.

I repeat: it is not enough that someone is upset. You cannot commit harassment accidentally because an unspecified person happens to be upset by something they happen to see you doing in your daily life.

Now perhaps the person who reported the sticker incident to the police is genuinely upset. If that is the case, they need to seek professional help to enable them to become more resilient so that they can function in society. The police taking their complaint seriously is more likely to hinder that process than to help it. The police should have explained to this person that they need to be able to exist in society, along with people who do not necessarily share their views or their taste in stickers, and that they can't expect the police to go round having words with everyone who doesn't live in their rainbow coloured bubble.

More likely, this person is not genuinely upset, but is simply a malicious complainer who wants to cause trouble for people who do not live in their rainbow coloured bubble by reporting completely reasonable and legal behaviour to the police, because they have learned that the police will not tell them to grow up and stop wasting everyone's time, but that they will collude with them to make life difficult for people who do not share their views by acting as though photographing stickers is a police matter when in fact it clearly is not.

You are really not helping to counteract the impression many people now have that the police are an absolute disgrace, and that they are neither competent nor impartial.

DOES THE STICKER FEEL HARASSED? CALL THE COPS.

I see one of the usual culprits has completely murdered this thread beyond being useful or relevant or readable.

I don't know, assuming you're talking about Felix I think it's been a useful exercise in demonstrating that Suella Braverman, for all her faults, is absolutely right to crack down on the police.

I wish I could report you to professional standards. If you are actually a police officer, you’re neither professional, nor in possession of standards. You are a disgrace.

I'm a little reluctant to revive this thread because.....reasons

but

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/12/police-leader-questions-braverman-clampdown-on-officers-impartiality

I know 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' isn't always true but I think it applies here.

I like the big chunk of Braverman's letter quoted at the end. To me it says 'See! This is why we need an investigation'. I understand that people who do not share my outlook will fail to see the problem in any of that.

i don't think Fotheringham really understands what is to be investigated. It isn't so much that some officers dance at pride (and may or may not be part of the LGBTQ+ community) but that some officers seem to be prioritising being at the back and call of the "permanently outraged and frightened of old ladies with a camera phone" over assaults and burglaries.

ALL the police need to do is be transparent about what they are doing. That is it.

Jesus Fotheringham, do you really have to be allowed to merengue at Pride to be able to avoid being a dick to your employees over the sex of people they have relationships with in their own time? Like, is it an either or?

It's the PSA's Annual Conference. Hence the noise from an organisation rarely listened to. Paul Be Kind Fotheringham is likely to be keeping his options open for his next job by defending the need to merengue.

No need for it. Keep it neutral, impartial, respectful, safe as possible, if you are policing an event. That's it.

I doubt very much that he'd get a majority of his membership agreeing with him regarding the Bravermann letter if he put that in a Motion to Conference.

Ohhh! So not meringue!

If Fotheringham were truly concerned with the most vulnerable in society & not “the most vulnerable in society” he wouldn’t be taking issue with this.