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

We have had no training such as this

Right, but once they've attended the scene of the non crime and established that it really is just a sticker, instead of hunting down the stickerer to chastise them for their non crime, they need to throw the book at the nuisance caller.

If they need stronger powers to do this, I'm sure the current Home Secretary would be more than willing to grant them. Repeated offences should result in a criminal record, thus harming the nuisance caller's employment prospects.

I'm afraid I think the police need to grow some balls here and just issue a statement saying, "This person called the police to deal with what turned out to be a sticker bearing the slogan "adult human female". Since this was neither a crime nor an emergency, valuable police resources were diverted from others who were in actual need of police assistance. We would like to remind the public that making hoax calls is against the law and a waste of public resources."

That's a brilliant letter

Little old ladies are well known for terrorising whole comunites by...taking pictures of stickers. It is literally why the police were originally formed.

They have the power and have no problem using it against stalking victims like the poor woman who was fined and cautioned for reporting her stalker who went on to murder her. Unfortunately it's a case of the police not willing to do anything about a certain demographic who waste police time and issues death and rape threats you know the things the malicious communications act was designed to deal with rather than hurty feelings from someone stating the truth, basicly it's all down to how biased the police are about applying the law fairly to all without fear or favor

Could have done with a bit more of a catchy quote to wow the masses. I'd have gone for "Police for Women - get in girls!!!"

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

Has it ever been "silent" prayer. Isn't it always loud and in your face, with offensive placards waved in women's faces.

About the only type of protest I would have thought the new Public Order Bill justified.

That's true, it's why they were originally called Peelers.

Yes, "silent prayer" is rather disingenuous, isn't it?

Even if they were silent, and neither spoke any audible words nor displayed any placards or written material, even if they simply stood there, their presence would most likely be intimidating. And that it its purpose.

If all they wanted was to silently pray for the souls of these women and their unborn babies, they could do that in their own homes or churches.

AlisonDonut
Little old ladies are well known for terrorising whole comunites by...taking pictures of stickers. It is literally why the police were originally formed.
You'll be surprised! We had a case of a 'little old lady' not liking cars parked on her street, so regularly scratched them as she walked past. Even got to the point where she would walk onto people's drives to do it. And these were expensive damages.

Another 'older person' who collected dog dirt from the street and assumed it was all from one house - so used to throw it on their drive. This couple didn't own a dog however. 'older person' didn't believe it and continued.

Older allotment holders who are jealous of their neighbours crop - sneak onto their plot and destroy them.

The term 'old' doesn't mean a great deal - I sometime think the older a person gets, the more childish they become.

MargotBamborough
I'm afraid I think the police need to grow some balls here and just issue a statement
I agree - and I would have probably not attended and told the complainant that it was no a police matter.

But it depends how much of a 'sob story' that the reporting person put on to the police. "....I know its only a minor thing, but its just one thing after another and its pushing me to the point of suicide. I am on strong medication and this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Can you go around and just explain to her how much distress this is causing me etc etc......."

Some cops may think - for the sake of a quick door knock, we'll keep her happy.

They don't want to risk the reporting person harming themselves (and people do for minor things such as this). And if its the reporting person's honest held belief that its causing her stress and anxiety etc etc - we can't really prosecute her for wasting police time.

It also stops her going to the press. And the police can release a statement saying that it was not a police matter - but she will just spin it to show that the police are just lazy and not helping victims again and look at how much medication I am on, how many days work I have missed, how I can't even walk down the street anymore..........

hard agree.

I just think they take the low hanging fruit and that's ok for them.

disingenuous twaddle again.
NOBODY has said that people who commit criminal damage, especially of several cars, shouldn't be reported and arrested. Even if they are 104.

People taking a picture of a sticker- not even sticking the bloody thing? Police should just get the fuck out of there and give the reporter a ticking off. But i am going to assume that "report was made - words were had" looks much better in the statistics than "report was made - established to be a case of 'hurty feels' (or even malicious reporting - words had with the reporter"

Brefugee

No problem - and then when she goes to the press and states "...that the police are just lazy and not helping victims again and look at how much medication I am on, how many days work I have missed, how I can't even walk down the street anymore.........."

The public will support the police........not

There will be a public outcry against them.

what are you on about? what victims? what scenario do you think all the public will be more down on the police than they already are due to the police's very own actions.

Old lady scratches cars - someone reports, the police are involved and arrest the old lady for criminal damage. No issues for anyone
Old lady - who is in a lesbian relationship i think? - takes a photograph of a sticker - police visit to warn her about her wrongthink. People rightly call the police utter idiots for going along with this.
or Old lady - who is in a lesbian relationship i think? - takes a photograph of a sticker and the police tell the people who report it that it's not a crime. So what, those people go to the press? do you think the public are going to say "boo hoo the hurty feels weren't validated by the police. Entirely correct" or are the public going to say "despite burglaries and shoplifting being low priority due to staffing levels it is ENTIRELY correct that the police intimidate an old lady"

what do you think, Felix? Just pack it in.

Brefugee

Because the person who goes to the press is going to spin it their way. They are not going to say that 'my feelings were hurt' - they are going to say "...that the police are just lazy and not helping victims again and look at how much medication I am on, how many days work I have missed, how I can't even walk down the street anymore.........."

They are going to make it sound far worse than it is

When the press get a statement from the police it will say "... we took no further action in this case as it was apparent that this person was trying to demonize an older lady for they way she thinks - which is not what the police are here for"

You will then get a back lash from the community about how bad the police are for not caring about this person and causing them more stress & anxiety.

The way this thread is going confirms, for me, that we now have policing to the standards of "public opinion" (for which read loudest voices) rather than the law.

But then people always throw the argument that we police by consent. By consent of a population/community as opposed to an individual.

The press will stir up the community to react against the police and show that we are not policing by consent.

Felix125

You'll be surprised! We had a case of a 'little old lady' not liking cars parked on her street, so regularly scratched them as she walked past. Even got to the point where she would walk onto people's drives to do it. And these were expensive damages.

Another 'older person' who collected dog dirt from the street and assumed it was all from one house - so used to throw it on their drive. This couple didn't own a dog however. 'older person' didn't believe it and continued.

Older allotment holders who are jealous of their neighbours crop - sneak onto their plot and destroy them.

The term 'old' doesn't mean a great deal - I sometime think the older a person gets, the more childish they become.

In none of those instances was a little old lady taking photos with her own equipment to look at with her own eyes. It is perfectly fine to take photos in public, perhaps you need to do some refresher training.

AlisonDonut
It is perfectly fine to take photos in public

I know it is - and I haven't said any different

I'm genuinely appalled by this response. I know you're trying to show things from the point of view of the police but I think you're just confirming many people's point of view that the police are ideologically captured, lazy, and can only be bothered to go for the low hanging fruit, thus making it easy for a political lobby group to manipulate the police into serving their interests rather than those of the general public.

You seem to be implying that if someone from this particular special group cries hard enough about how someone triggered their anxiety by taking a photograph of a sticker, instead of suggesting they make an appointment with their GP to seek help with their mental health problems, it is reasonable to pay a visit to a completely innocent person who has done nothing wrong and quiz them about their behaviour and beliefs.

Has it not occurred to you that a visit from the police over something as trivial, and indeed non criminal, as taking a photo of a sticker, might cause distress and anxiety to that person? That they then might live their life in a constant state of fear about whether they might get another visit from the police if they are seen looking funny at a trans person, or commenting that they don't think Isla Bryson should have been sent to a women's prison under an article that appeared on their news feed on Facebook? That they might worry about the potential consequences of their name being known to the police in connection with a "non hate crime incident"?

What a ridiculous concept anyway.

Surely a "non hate crime incident" is a "non crime", i.e. something the police should not be bothering you about (but might anyway if they think their job is to do the bidding of TQ+ activists rather than, you know, preventing, dealing with and investigating actual crimes.

Your post has me thinking that we need some sort of access to justice for people who are harassed by the police in this way. That we need a system whereby people like this woman can make a formal complaint about the police which is investigated by an independent third party, and have the right to information about what action was taken against both the vexatious complainant and the officer who made the call to attend their home.

We need people who make complaints about things like this to be subject to fines, but it appears that if the police were responsible for issuing the fines the system would be a non starter, so it needs to be administered independently of the police and have the power to sanction individual police officers who side with the cry bullies when there is clearly no case to answer, causing harm and distress to completely innocent parties.

is this your first encounter with the Policesplainer aka Felix, Margot?

Felix. As usual nothing you say endears anyone but the arse lickers to the police. You are wrong on so many levels it is as now as though you are parodying yourself. (my fault for actually replying to you)

But Felix, please stop and think.

If they are going to bleat that the police don't take them seriously - it will be approx 2 minutes before someone on Twitter finds out EXACTLY what the complaint was and post it.

So how do you think that makes the police look? that they didn't do a minimum amount of checking into what happened?

Again: you lot will go for the low hanging fruit every time. We know this because you are here confirming it to us. We know because we can read.

I have a suggestion for everyone out there in internet land: every time something happens that you should report to the police. Report it. And then give us their response on the internet. So we see: bike stolen and reported, automatic answer "here's a crime number for your insurance"

small bump in your car "take it to insurance nobody was injured"

there was an eldely lady photographing a sticker "3 PLODS WENT TO HER HOUSE AND PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN THAT OL' LEZZER"

you will soon see what the public REALLY think.

She's spot on. Well done to her. One thing I do agree on.

I think so, although I have been off MN for a while so I can't be sure. (I got a week in the sin bin and then decided to take a break for the summer holidays with two kids at home.)

The suggestion that going round to essentially intimidate a woman just to make a trans activist who makes vexatious complaints to the police feel satisfied that something has been done is utterly astonishing.

What do you think these bullies want when they report women to the police in connection with stickers, Felix?

I'll give you a clue. It has got nothing to do with their anxiety. It is about causing anxiety in others, namely women who don't share their political views. What could be more threatening to a woman than having an aggressive activist on Twitter telling her that trans women are women and if she doesn't like it she can suck their dicks? Oh, I don't know, probably a visit from an actual real life police officer wearing a rainbow coloured lanyard and saying that there have been reports of her behaving in a way that could be inconsistent with believing that trans women are women, and don't you know they are incredibly vulnerable, and you wouldn't want to get into trouble now, would you?

Because that tells her that if she complains to the police about the activist who threatened to rape her, they won't be on her side.