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

TW police officer Lynsay Watson is able to call the Home Secretary a "Fascist Pig", claims that the Home Secretary is undermining existing law whilst declaring war on "the LGBTQI Community", and urges people to tell her to "do one", and Leics police are just looking the other way?

I'm sure that the local population are so reassured at the quality of their officers.

htips://twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1698034987826614582/photo/1

@Dumbo12 In fairness you only have Felix's word that they are a real copper. But even if we assume they are not only entirely genuine but that there arguements are in good faith you still have to ask why the police didn't confront this particular dilemma by saying they will look into the matter, issuing a crime number and then doing nothing further. This seems to work as a policy for many other crimes (despite press/public outrage) so why only in the case of stickers are they FORCED by a judgemental press and the cruelty of public opinion to act.

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.

to be fair to Felix - much as it sticks in the craw - unlike other threads where we did know it was a serial complainer (same one complaining about the same person more than once and crowing about it) - there is no indication (I think) that this is a serial/vexatious complainer here.

Having said that, given what Felix has said in the past, we will never know because s/he (I think he's said he's a he though?) has indicated often enough that each thing must be treated on its own merits and therfore would never check if this is the 94th complaint by that person, let alone the 94th complaint by that person about the same person multiple times.

Because this is an easy gig. A wailing "victim", an easily identified "perp". A visit to said perp to solve the "crime". And words to said perp to "prevent" future crime.

Victim mollified, justice served, future crime rate reduced. All the while collecting Stonewall brownie points. What's not to like for the current police service, any pretensions to being a force long since gone.

Hopefully a tiny minority as we seem to be getting more Orwellian by the day

What next? A woman looks at a sticker with her eyes?

I'm afraid I would favour a three strikes approach here.

Make a vexatious report to the police once, we'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Twice and you get a verbal warning. Three times and we will not respond to any complaint you make in the next year unless you walk into a police station to report having been raped or you call 999 to report an emergency. If you get burgled in that time, tough shit. Shouldn't have got yourself put on the time wasters list.

As I'm not British I find it confusing over that police officer. He insulted the Home Secretary and the police don't arrest him for a hate crime, but they arrest a woman for taking a photograph of a sticker?

This is the crux of impartiality however

Because what's vexatious to you may be someone else's genuine concern

Ironically if you're discussing police impartiality they have to be impartial to EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE!

That why they cannot win, ever . In an issue between two parties with opposing views they are only thre to see if a crime has been committed not take sides or referee. Someone out of the two parties will always be left feeling badly done to because they didn't get their way .

It's a thankless job.

As I'm not British I find it confusing over that police officer. He insulted the Home Secretary and the police don't arrest him for a hate crime, but they arrest a woman for taking a photograph of a sticker?

Nailed it.

What crime could possibly have been committed by taking a photo of a sticker? This is not any form of impartiality.

piffle.

We know, because there were newspaper reports, that Shana Grice was stalked, reported the stalker to the police several times and was punished (by the law) as a vexatious litigant.
That suggests to me that the police do actually know how to put 2 and 2 together. The shame is that they made 5.
Because she was then murdered by her stalker. Because the police are, frankly, not up to the job of treating crimes against women with the seriousness they deserve.

Now, Felix, because he and i have been round and round the houses with this - thinks that they can't put 2 and 2 together to recognise a vexatious litigant (on threads discussing a very well known one) because they have to be "impartial" (which i think they think means lazy or inactive, but who knows?) so they can't say "oi, you fucker, pack it in or we'll charge YOU with malicious reporting and wasting the Plods' time".

Disbelieving women who report rapes. We know from the recent case in Scotland where 4 victims waived their right to anonymity in their rape case, that they were treated from the very outset as liars, whereas the perpetrator of the crimes was handled with kid gloves, advised of all his rights along the way etc etc. (amazingly he was tried, convicted and jailed - but it took women waiving their right to anonymity to get that far)

So no. It isn't a thankless job. It is a job. That they don't always execute to anything approaching satisfaction in many many cases.

That why they cannot win, ever . In an issue between two parties with opposing views they are only thre to see if a crime has been committed not take sides or referee. Someone out of the two parties will always be left feeling badly done to because they didn't get their way .

but I'll bite.
"officer officer, I'm all of a flutter because i saw an ancient lezzer take a photo of an anti-trans sticker"

how DO you think that should be handled?

All I see when i read the nonsense from Felix is “we’re scared that the person complaining about a sticker might make things hard for us so we’ll go and make things hard for someone else to avoid that”

Ive no sympathy for that point of view.

The police do a tough job, yes.

But it's fairly obvious in the difference of treatment.

Women have been lifted including being removed from their home in front of their kids, held for hours in cells, waited weeks before CPS grudgingly admitted they'd done nothing wrong, for stating facts and biology that some twit got all offended by and wanted to use the police as weapons to punish them for it. In this case, a woman photographing a sticker ffs.

Women have reported rape threats, death threats, racial abuse, homophobic abuse and actual assault, with evidence to the police and received nothing but shrugs.

There is differential treatment, and it's sex based and it's politics based. And it stinks to high heaven.

I'll add to that, the one activist who was lifted for inciting a large crowd to commit violence and beat women who wanted equality and rights, (you know, actually illegal),

.... was lifted only after some days, following initially a lot of shrugs and the police saying they gave him a little warning at the scene to use his kind words.

Spot the difference yet?

He was lifted only after much negative publicity towards the police and government, and pressure from above upon the police, and because the individual in question had breached the terms of his parole on a number of occasions. Largely he was lifted for causing the powers that be some tricky PR issues, not for breaching his parole or inciting the battering of women who stand up for their rights.

Yes, but Felix, the person who has reported a non crime committed by a person whose completely reasonable and legal views they happen to disagree with is the person who should not get their way.

Because they have done something wrong, and the other person has not.

Because they mistakenly believe the police are actually the Stasi, there to enforce their belief system on unwilling dissenters, rather than public servants who are paid to keep us all safe.

Because they are wasting public resources reporting these non crimes to the police and expecting you to do something about it, thus hindering your ability to do your actual job, which, in case you need reminding, is to keep us all safe.

Being impartial does not mean you need to go and intimidate people who have done absolutely nothing wrong just so the twat who reported them to you for a non crime feels that something has been done.

The only thing that needs to be done in this situation is that the twat who reported them needs to be put firmly back in their box.

Seriously. Impartiality! I've heard it all now.

If you think Impartiality means you need to pander to the feelings of someone who makes vexatious complaints to the police then you SERIOUSLY need to go on a refresher course about your duties towards the public.

Even I know that's not what your duty of impartiality means, and I'm not claiming to be a bloody copper!

Good grief.

Related topic, but the only question I have about the Sorry Police / Caroline F / Vexatious Crybully is whether they are being Useful Idiots for Fear or for Favour, or just general background multipurpose misogyny.

MargotBamborough
Yes, but Felix, the person who has reported a non crime committed by a person whose completely reasonable and legal views they happen to disagree with is the person who should not get their way.

But it goes back to depending on what that person has said on their initial call. Presumably, they haven't said "....Hello, I am a vexatious complainer and would like to make a complaint about a lady taking a photo in a public place"

They are going to make the incident seem a lot worse. Or make out that this is an ongoing series of events in which they feel targeted by this person and others which is causing them distress etc etc.

So the call taker may think that is this ongoing harassment which needs to be investigated? Is this a targeted campaign against the caller?

But you're happy for us not to take any notice and write it off at the initial phone call without any kind of investigation, despite what the reporting person is saying to us?

Brefugee
"officer officer, I'm all of a flutter because i saw an ancient lezzer take a photo of an anti-trans sticker"
how DO you think that should be handled?

"officer officer, I have a group of people who are making my life a living hell and I am at the point of suicide now. This has been ongoing for sometime and its a targeted campaign against me. I am scared to walk down the street, my life is a living hell. Today they have got an older lady to tamper with a poster which we have placed and this is the final straw for me. I'm sure that this old lady has done several other harassing things against me in the past and she knows exactly what she is doing and is doing it to cause me stress & harassment. I would like some sort of action taken to stop this as I feel as though i am being stalked and harassed by them & her. I have had my car & home damaged several times now which I can not prove who is doing it but i am certain its all related, because its ever since i placed this poster up"

How Do you think that should be handled? - 'we are not bothered with you, get lost!'

No, I'm saying that you go out and investigate, and when you find out it is literally only a bloody sticker, you definitely do not go round to the sticker photo takers house to make the caller feel something has done, you give the caller a bollocking they will not forget in a hurry for wasting police time.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

MargotBamborough
Make a vexatious report to the police once, we'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Twice and you get a verbal warning. Three times and we will not respond to any complaint you make

What's your definition of a vexatious complainer to the police?

Do we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the report was false?

Or is it when the prosecution case can not be proved against the suspect - the reporting person is classed as vexatious?

Cailin66 · Yesterday 15:53

As I'm not British I find it confusing over that police officer. He insulted the Home Secretary and the police don't arrest him for a hate crime, but they arrest a woman for taking a photograph of a sticker?

Yes, welcome to Topsy-Turvy Land....

MargotNoBamborough
No, I'm saying that you go out and investigate, and when you find out it is literally only a bloody sticker, you definitely do not go round to the sticker photo takers house to make the caller feel something has done, you give the caller a bollocking they will not forget in a hurry for wasting police time.

But what if the reporting person states that its more than just this sticker - its a series of events by this older lady and this sticker is just the tip of the ice berg. And that she is part of a bigger group which is targeting the reporting person. If you visit the older lady, you may find out who the other members of this group are - and i have also had damage to my car etc etc etc

Gellhell
As I'm not British I find it confusing over that police officer. He insulted the Home Secretary and the police don't arrest him for a hate crime, but they arrest a woman for taking a photograph of a sticker?

A - she wasn't arrested as far as i know
B - has the home secretary made a complaint that she was insulted/harassed by the comment?
C - Was the complaint more than just 'she has taken a photo of a sticker?

Have the person come in, take a statement, ask them to detail every single incident they are talking about, explaining in detail why they are sure that the same person is responsible for all of them.

If it's just a feeling (I've seen this person around a lot and I'm sure that she's the one doing it, she seems the type) you explain that you can't go round to someone's house without any proof that they were actually involved in a crime.

If they describe "incidents" such as observing this person taking a photo of a sticker and explain that this makes them feel harassed, you gently explain that the crime of harassment requires some kind of ill intention on the part of the person committing it, and that as much as you sympathise with their evident distress, nobody taking a photo of a sticker is going to imagine that in doing so they might be causing distress to a random person, who, unbeknown to them, is believes that the sticker is about them and is incredibly upset to see someone take a photo of it.

You gently explain that even putting the sticker up is neither harassment nor any kind of crime, and that taking a photo of a sticker most certainly isn't either of those things.

You say by all means come in again if you experience a pattern of behaviour actually directed at you by a particular individual which you perceive to be harassment and we will look into it. But we are not going to identify and question a random lady for taking a picture of a sticker. Sorry.

And then you gently suggest that they seek some help for their anxiety.