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

Can we at least agree that whilst there are current thefts which have not been investigated, the police shouldn't be dedicating any time to stickers?

You're up for legalising theft basically in order to have available time to do... what exactly?

Chase people about looking at stickers that suggest reality exists?

Bloody hell. Wtaf are my taxes being used for? And wtf am I doing co operating with and enabling this?

That would the surveys given to self identifying victims of non crime hate incidents. The surveys that aren't given to the women who try to report death and rape threats but are told to "just stay off twitter" etc. Those surveys @Felix125 yes

I think your comments on press interest are a fair bit of nonsense Felix. All police forces use THRIVE now don't they to allocate calls? Mainly because lots of batshit people ring up the police with matters that are a waste of time. Certainly when we got a briefing on THRIVE, considering what the press might think wasn't part of it

The whole point is to empower call handlers to actually determine what needs a pop or response and every CAD call list I've ever seen has actual crimes with real victims that the police just don't have resources to deal with as they're busy dealing with more serious offences. So these sticker issues need to be given the short shrift that the other time wasters do.

Thanks @AnneElliott for your helpful and timely input.

Here's a West Midlands Police document on the use of THRIVE, if anyone is interested.
https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/THRIVE.pdf

It has clickey links to the National Decision Making Model, Policing Principles, and Code of Ethics.
There's also a link to a Greater Manchester Police training video on the use of THRIVE ( 3 minutes)

When we were suggesting that Sorry Police go do some Real Work rather than harassing Caroline F, it is my recollection that Felix repeatedly implied that we didn't know that the busy mother of four wasn't waging a campaign of violence. Sure, seems unlikely but we after all don't know for sure she's not Criminal Masterminding while sitting in the Berlingo waiting for her kid to finish swimming practice.

After all, Sorry Police would not be harassing her using powers designed to thwart terror attacks, if she wasn't head of some kind of Mumsy Terror Plot. Would they.

That's what I was talking about. Felix said several times that we couldn't know it was a serial complainer (they did) and that each individual report should be judged on its own merits (hmmm-a counter to that should be, at this stage, CF should be able to claim harassment but IANAL) ad nausea ad infinitum

I believe the te hnical term is cognitive dissonance

I don't waste my time engaging on diversionary debates with the poster who thinks FWR stands for Felix against Women's Rights Brefugee

What decent, genuine, male, police officer of 23 years on response (allegedly) in an English Police Service, thinks it appropriate to obsessively post uninformed diversionary bollocks on a feminist board day after day?

The police have procedures in place as AnneElliot has pointed out.

Yet there are many examples of these procedures not being correctly followed/ignored when it comes to the likes of CF and others.

We ( the women here) can all see that there's something exceptionally rotten going on.

Really? Rather at odds with this:

YouGov has routinely asked Britons (between 1,627 and 1,820 people at a time) about their confidence in the police to deal with crime in their local area. The first survey for this was in July 2019, when 53 percent said they had “a lot/a fair amount of confidence” whereas in April 2023 this decreased to 39 percent.

And this:

Surveys conducted by the polling organisation YouGov indicate a loss of public confidence in the police:

• YouGov’s monthly tracker “Are the police doing a good job” shows that over the course of 2020 an average of 70% of respondents thought the police were doing a good job relative to 21% who thought they were doing a bad job. However, by April 2023 these figures were 47% and 44% respectively.
• Similarly, the proportion of people who had not very much confidence or no confidence at all in the police to deal with crime averaged 38% in 2020. As of April 2023, this figure had risen to 53%.

MargotBamborough
Can we at least agree that whilst there are current thefts which have not been investigated, the police shouldn't be dedicating any time to stickers?

Of course

What I am suggesting is that if the reporting person has contacted police and just reported that some old lady has taken a photo of a sticker - then it should be binned at source.

But perhaps the reporting person has added much more onto the call to make the call taker think its a lot more involved than just a sticker and that it is seriously affecting her life. Do we still bin it at source?

AnneElliott
So these sticker issues need to be given the short shrift that the other time wasters do.

I agree - but what if they 'over egg the pudding' and make out that they are being harassed and its seriously affecting their life?

Most time wasting calls get binned either by the call taker or at the dispatcher stage - but some are thrived and get through.

Brefugee · Today 15:28
That's what I was talking about. Felix said several times that we couldn't know it was a serial complainer (they did) and that each individual report should be judged on its own merits (hmmm-a counter to that should be, at this stage, CF should be able to claim harassment but IANAL) ad nausea ad infinitum

No - I gave a disclaimer at the bottom of most of my posts on that thread:
Disclaimer - I am using 'we' to mean me and most others on here. I acknowledge that some on here will know or have been told the details of the complaint and I am aware that Caroline may have access to this thread or indeed people close to her. I also acknowledge that the reporting person, OIC and direct witnesses may also read the thread and hence will not be included in the term 'we'.

But it goes back to the question then - at what point do we ignore any further contact from that reporting person? After the 5th time, 10th time? Is it any calls about any offence from this person? Do we use the same principal for all crimes/incidents reported to police by people?

And CF can make a complaint of harassment against the reporting person if she so wishes.

The sticker might be seriously affecting the person's life. But it is not a crime.

The job of the police is to prevent and investigate crimes.

The appropriate response here is to say, "I'm sorry you are very upset about the sticker but putting up stickers and taking photos of stickers are not crimes. This is not a police matter."

Not, "I'm sorry you are very upset about the sticker and even though no crime has been committed we will pay a visit to the person who photographed the sticker and tell her how upset you are and maybe hint that taking pictures of stickers might be a criminal matter so she knows to be much more careful around stickers in the future, if that will make you feel better."

LarkLane
I'm using the same rights that you have to post on here.
And the forum is 'by parents for parents'

I just went back to page 1 and the OP as I thought I must have somehow wandered into any number of threads that start of about something specific and then get hijacked.

Hopefully when and if the review SB has asked for is completed we can then hav a discussion about the proposals.

Not sure that it is worth commentating on this thread until that happens.

Cant understand why if someone wants to promote a particular view point they dont start a thread about it.

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

Casual ageism. Age is a protected characteristic.
Do better Felix.

MargotBamborough
The sticker might be seriously affecting the person's life. But it is not a crime.

The reporting person might not be just saying its about 'putting up stickers and taking photos of stickers'. They might go on to say its harassment as the the same person has done numerous things against the reporting person day after day after day. Tampering with their car, graffiti etc etc.

So the crime that they might be suggesting is harassment, which will need o be investigated.

To go back to a point @Truthlikeness made in the OP, regarding the Twitter account(s) of what turns out to be a serving Police Officer.

Last I knew, TW serving Leics. Police Officer Lynsay Watson, had been served with a Gross Misconduct Notice . At that time, the Officer, under various sock accounts, had sent Harry of FairCop 860 abusive messages, including threats of violence.

The Officer also had sent thousands of messages about, and to, GC women.

The Officer, however, was/is allowed to continue working whilst awaiting a CPS decision to prosecute. Their " file" had been handed to Lincs. Police. ( I think it was)

Has anyone an update on what is happening? Watson seems to now be calling for the " fascist pig" Home Secretary to be the target of abuse? Is Watson still at work?

(Bearing in mind that we have MPs who have been murdered, or nearly murdered, in recent years)

Yet CF gets a full posse at the door, her child with autism and family traumatised, and all the shit that is ongoing.

BoreOfWhabylon
Casual ageism. Age is a protected characteristic.
Do better Felix.

Just because its a protected characteristic - you can still have an opinion on it.

Religion is a protected characteristic - does that mean I am not allowed to have an opinion on that either?

Do better next time BoreOfWhabylon

Felix.

How is photographing a sticker part of a series of incidents which could constitute harassment?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that on one occasion Samantha observes our elderly TERF (let's call her Margaret) keying her car. Both Margaret and Samantha are directly involved here because Samantha is the car owner and Margaret is the person who has damaged it.

Then two weeks later Samantha observes Margaret photographing the sticker.

What is the relevance of the sticker?

The only person involved in the photographing of the sticker is Margaret.

Photographing a sticker is not behaviour targeted at a particular individual. And as you correctly observe, harassment requires the same individual to have done numerous things against the victim. Photographing a sticker is not something Margaret has done to Samantha, is it?

So how can it form part of an allegation that Margaret is harassing Samantha?

Dearie me, such scorn for certain members of the public. Forgotten the Oath? Perhaps a refresher is needed when portraying oneself as an Officer of the Crown.

....I will well and truly serve the King in the Office of Constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people....

MargotBamborough

So Samantha states that Margaret witnessed Samantha putting up the poster outside Samantha's shop for example. So Margret knew that the poster was personal to Samantha. In the past Margaret has keyed Samantha's car, has thrown things at Samantha's car. Has walked past Samantha's window sticking fingers up. When ever Samantha is walking down the street, Margaret shout abuse etc etc.

And now Margret witnessed Samantha putting up this poster and within a day, she takes photo of it, knowing that Sam was watching her. Samantha believes that Margaret has done this deliberately and its all part of the ongoing harassment against her.

Samantha now feels that they can not get on with their life with looking over their shoulder.

So do the police just say to Samantha - sorry, we are not going to support you in this as no offence has taken place as its all simply about taking a photo of a sticker and everything else is irrelevant.

LarkLane
....I will well and truly serve the King in the Office of Constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people....

Is that to all people - or just the ones that you think we should support?

So, this reporting person doesn't fit into this category and should be ignored regardless of what they are reporting?

GailBlancheViola
You need to look at individual forces who ring back the victims of crimes for the surveys.

National polls will also include a lot of people who have been arrested, prosecuted etc

Well this is all very far fetched, but OK, I'll continue to humour you.

You say, "Let's focus on the criminal damage to your car, because taking photos of stickers is completely legal and to be honest if all we've got is CCTV footage of Margaret taking a picture of a sticker, and no evidence that she even knew you were watching her as she did it, it's not going to be enough to make out a harassment claim and if anything is only likely to make Margaret's lawyers suggest that you are paranoid. So back to the car. What evidence do you have that Margaret has been involved in criminal damage to your car?"

Just as a reminder, we are firmly in the realm of the fictional scenario at this point, because the woman who was interviewed by the police for photographing a sticker is not alleged to have harassed anyone or damaged their car, trans or otherwise. She literally just took a photo of a sticker. It bears repeating because there are actual, real people here. There is a real woman who was interviewed by the police for photographing a sticker, which caused her harm and distress. And there is a real person who observed her take a photograph of a sticker and reported her to the police in circumstances where there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was part of a pattern of anti-trans behaviour or even that the person who reported her was genuinely distressed. And there is at least one police officer, probably more, who looked at those facts and instead of telling the person who called it in to get a bloody grip, decided to pay the poor woman a visit to talk about her interest in stickers.