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

Will silent prayer be to do with people praying outside abortion clinics?

Ah, that makes sense

cor it really tests your principles when you have to apply them to people you vehemently disagree with doesn’t it?

I don't really understand why we actually have abortion clinics tbh. If all abortions were performed in hospitals these people would have nowhere to protest. What are you going to do, stand with placards outside A&E?

Just headline grabbing by Braverman.

I'm not sure I follow.

Other than Twitter users with an interest in gender issues (on either side of the debate), who do you think this headline is going to grab?

I think that's what they do in Glasgow, in fact. I seem to remember people standing outside one of the hospitals 'praying' and holding placards. It's not A&E, but the gynae ward.

Haven't checked on the progress of teh exclusion zones recently, in fact, the SNP were dragging their heels on that while they rushed through the far more important GRR bill ...

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/proposals-for-bills/proposed-abortion-services-safe-access-zones-scotland-bill

and yes, they protest just outside hospitals gynae wards. One of the issues raised in discussion of the buffer zones was that women having a miscarriage were having to run the gauntlet of people with signs with graphic imagery on them. Upsetting for any woman but especially callous for those women.

These are US groups organising the protests/prayer vigils, whatever.

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but how do they know where the gynae wards are?

Am I being naive to assume that people can't just go wandering into hospitals without having an actual reason to be there, i.e. they are a patient, or visiting a patient, or they work in the hospital?

I would imagine most hospitals are big enough that gynae wards could be placed somewhere quite far from any kind of street access.

Anyone can google search and find where a ward is. And they stand outside, in the street.

I don't know the new QE hospital in Glasgow, but they have been picketing/praying for some years now, according to news reports.

@MargotBamborough
During Covid you’d to prove you’d a reason to be there, but they’d sometimes accept “I’m seeing x Team about Y but I’ve not got my letter/didn’t get a letter to show you”. Normally though anyone can wander in: the assumption is that people wouldn’t want to without good reason. Hospitals are also full of maps; directories; & even helpful volunteers who’d absolutely direct someone to the gynae ward unless a directive had been given from above that presence of/threats from protestors meant they were not to do so. Might be considered preferable to keep them in the one place with security presence though, rather than drifting about & possibly trying to access NICU or theatres or somewhere else they’d be more of a potential danger.

AFAIK they don't go into the hospital. They stand outside. I think they used to do the Sandyford, too, which covers all sexual health.

The Police Service ignore Suella Braverman, just as the NHS ignore Steve Barclay. No matter how many times these ministers write to them, they just do whatever they like. The Police will still record non hate crimes against women daring to question the harm of gender ideology, and the NHS will still call us chest feeders and cervix havers.

Nobody gives a fuck.

The police will not be able to ignore her. Each force will risk being put into special measures, which they won't want.

The problem the police will have is a resources issue.

I have no problem dealing with any theft no matter how low value it is. The problem is, they need to give me time to do it. If the suspect denies the offence, then they will have to give me the time to put the case file together. So this will involve getting the statements from the 6 shop staff who witnessed it and finding a time when they are working and I am not being diverted to another job; each statement can take 1-2 hours to do. They are going to have to give me time to review all the CCTV and redact it (which takes ages). Then put the case file together.

Its gets to the point where you have to balance allowing me to sit and start redacting the CCTV for a theft of a sandwich valued at £2.50 - or send me to the next vulnerable missing child.

Not to mention that to escalate a process, and get to more serious intervention, you have to demonstrate that all previous levels of intervention have been tried and have failed.

Yes it's slower than molasses and this should have been done years ago, but this is a step forward.

While I absolutely can see your point, in the case of West yorkshire police, they appear to have the time and resources to send 3 officers to re-educate a woman who took a photo of a sticker. They also appeared to have had the time and resources to view the cctv, and then find the woman's name and address.

Dumbo12

I agree - it comes back to what was on the original call and was it 'over egged' to get a police response. Did the original call from the reporting person elude to a crime taking place for example?

Perhaps the call taker should have said "no - we are not sending anyone". But then you suffer the wrath of the reporting person who makes a formal complaint that they have reported a possible crime and the police have done nothing to investigate it.

So it appears that they have 'erred on the side of caution' and created a job to send an officer - just in case.

But then that is what the Home Secretary is wanting by 'all crimes must be investigated'

In this the case - the call taker has judged that there may be a crime here, and created a job. You wont know if it is a crime unless its investigated.

The police end up in a 'no win' situation.

Surely the point at which the police realised they had been called out over a sticker should have been the point at which they closed the file and issued the caller with a caution or whatever the punishment is for someone who wastes police time and resources by reporting things which are neither crimes nor emergencies?

It does seem likely to me that the sticker crime will have been reported by someone who is able to give that police force a really hard time, and they’ve decided it’s easier to persecute the 73 year old lesbian than say no to the cluster B personality who reported her

I’m just speculating though

What sort of person could give the police a hard time?

MargotBamborough

I agree - any false calls should be dealt with, but often it depends on what the person's point of view is. What is merely a bit of nuisance to one person, maybe causing another person serious distress.

So in this case, the original caller may have said something along the lines of ".....I think she has placed this sticker on our poster to damage it and is doing so deliberately to cause me stress and anxiety. Its the last straw for me as we have loads of incidents like this and its now effecting my life as my anxiety has gone through the roof and I have had to go back to the doctors........... etc etc"

So the call taker has thought - "well, we better check it out in case there is something more to this". As opposed to "its only a sticker, get a grip and we are not sending anyone"

MargotBamborough
What sort of person could give the police a hard time?

The ones that go to the press, their MP, the Chief Constable etc etc and say "... I reported a possible offence against me and the police did absolutely nothing...."

They can't do this now that we have sent someone - rightly or wrongly

A toxic person with lots of time on their hands and or a minor position of influence

there are many of them among the general public and I would think that services like the police deal with them a lot (I’ve only ever worked in the private sector)

which makes just how bad they are at dealing with them all the more baffling

It depends on how you deal with them.

The problem being that if this reporting person phones to say that this lady has taken a photo of this sticker and it causing them distress. The call taker tells them that its "not a police matter and goodbye" - end of story.

The reporting person then goes to the press and makes out that this lady is a serial terrorist who is terrorizing their community causing stress, harassment and anxiety. They told the police their concerns and the police did absolutely nothing.

The press get hold of this and make the police force look corrupt and not dealing with a potential huge incident properly.

Therefore, the force take the option of passing the job onto a cop to deal with. That way, if there is any fall out, the force can blame that one cop for not handling the job properly.

Vexatious complainers happen a lot and they are not easy to deal with. You can't just simply ignore them all the time as you end up with the 'cry wolf' scenario.

For those wondering how the police bias and choice of training organisations have affected trust eg of victims, here's an example:
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2022/09/03/the-police-have-been-captured/