non-Met Police ****ery

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8392
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

non-Met Police ****ery

Post by shpalman » Wed Jun 01, 2022 3:30 pm

Injured woman freezes to death because PCSOs couldn't be bothered to get out of their car to look for her
A police force has paid damages to the family of a woman who froze to death in a cemetery after PCSOs called off a search after less than 10 minutes. The officers from Humberside Police didn’t even step foot outside of their car to look for Jacqueline Parsons, 56, as she lay dying in Western Cemetery in Hull, East Yorks.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by jimbob » Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:16 pm

Sadly not surprising anymore
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8392
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by shpalman » Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:59 am

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by IvanV » Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:09 am

shpalman wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:59 am
Arizona police watch man drown
I find this one confusing. A lot of people drown because they get into water to try to rescue someone else, and sometimes that is the only person that dies. "Don't get in with them" is frequently official advice, sometimes written in red paint on notices next to water-bodies. But it depends upon the circumstances. Was this a dangerous lake? Was the policeman even competent to get into the water to try to rescue someone?

So refusing to get into the water is potentially a very reasonable position to take. It depends upon the condition of the water, and the competence of the individual to do anything useful, as opposed to add to the number of dead.

It's a bit different from the situation of the gunman shooting people, where one does presume that the point of arming and training the police is to deal with situations like that. The police may have to put their lives at risk, but recklessly.

User avatar
Martin_B
After Pie
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Martin_B » Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:48 am

IvanV wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:09 am
shpalman wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:59 am
Arizona police watch man drown
I find this one confusing. A lot of people drown because they get into water to try to rescue someone else, and sometimes that is the only person that dies. "Don't get in with them" is frequently official advice, sometimes written in red paint on notices next to water-bodies. But it depends upon the circumstances. Was this a dangerous lake? Was the policeman even competent to get into the water to try to rescue someone?

So refusing to get into the water is potentially a very reasonable position to take. It depends upon the condition of the water, and the competence of the individual to do anything useful, as opposed to add to the number of dead.

It's a bit different from the situation of the gunman shooting people, where one does presume that the point of arming and training the police is to deal with situations like that. The police may have to put their lives at risk, but recklessly.
The only time I can legitimately say I saved someone's life was saving a drowning man in the Norfolk Broads. He was drunk, fell off his boat and got himself trapped in reeds struggling. I managed to help him free and got him to the bank, but he fought me all the way (probably a mixture of drunkenness, fear and confusion) and nearly killed the pair of us. I reckon the only thing which saved us was my life vest.

I doubt the police had one of those on, and do appear to have called for a boat, so I can't blame the police for not diving in and putting themselves at risk.

Their callousness towards the wife is pretty despicable, though.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7264
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:26 pm


Deep-rooted issues involving corruption, discrimination and sexual misconduct are widespread in police forces across England and Wales, a Financial Times analysis of data from the Independent Office for Police Conduct suggests.

The figures challenge the way national debate has focused on London’s Metropolitan Police.

Earlier this year, home secretary Priti Patel said the Met was suffering from “cultural and attitudinal” problems “across the board”, after a series of scandals and reports exposed racism, misogyny and corruption in its ranks. But the new findings emphasise that such issues are not limited to the capital’s force.

Nearly half of the 44 forces across England and Wales received more corruption and sexual misconduct complaints from members of the public, relative to their size, than the Met in the seven years to 2020, according to the data.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) recorded around twice as many complaints as the Met in both categories. The Home Office classes the two forces as peers based on the crime-related demographic, social and economic characteristics of the areas they police.

GMP and West Yorkshire Police, another official peer of the Met, both received discrimination reports at a similar rate to the London force, around 60 per 1,000 employees. West Midlands Police — another peer force — recorded 35.

Experts said the data may point to tangible differences between police forces on conduct and culture, but cautioned that this could be mixed with inconsistencies in how forces record their complaints or because of other factors, such as certain forces encouraging people to come forward or making it easier to complain.

The findings show that “policing has a really significant problem” and that “this is about all forces”, according to Sue Fish, a former chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police, who now campaigns for police reform.

Fish suggested that funding should be made available for research comparing forces’ cultures in order to dig into what is driving the differences highlighted by the data.

“You look at Greater Manchester’s figures, I don’t know what sits behind those . . . You think, blimey, what’s happened there? What is going on? What’s the culture like?”

She added that police forces were slowly starting to wake up to cultural issues in the wake of Sarah Everard’s murder in 2021 by a then serving Met officer, but that “they still don’t really want to pick up that stone”.

“It’s still seen as the bad apple or monster scenario, when actually, there are very few monsters. There’s an awful lot of men who do bad things. Many of those are police officers.”


The revelations on policing culture come on top of a BBC investigation finding a decline in operational performance, with the half of police forces in England and Wales that provided data taking more than three minutes longer to arrive at scenes of serious incidents compared with six years ago.

The FT collated complaints data from 300 documents held by the Independent Office for Police Conduct to allow a force-by-force comparison of different types of misconduct. The latest year for which data is available, ending March 2021, was excluded from the analysis because police complaint categories changed that year.

Leicestershire Police received more than 30 times as many corruption allegations, including abuse of position, as peer force Kent Police in the seven years to 2020 — the former noted 62 per 1000 employees while the latter received two. Leicestershire’s other peers, Hampshire Police and Nottinghamshire Police, received 13 times and four times fewer allegations, respectively.

Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire attracted the most discrimination reports, with 91 and 85 per 1,000 employees respectively — rates around three times higher than some of their peers.

Multiple allegations could refer to the same employee. The allegation rates are probably skewed downwards by the inclusion of backroom staff in the total workforce numbers. Such staff, who are usually civilians, can attract complaints but there are likely to be far fewer of these than for officers, who have contact with the public. Allegations lodged by staff are missing from the data because they cannot complain in the same way.

Gwent Police recorded allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual assault at a higher rate than any other force because, Gwent said, one employee who has since been dismissed received 39 allegations in 2015.

Wiltshire Police, Dyfed Powys Police and Nottinghamshire Police all attracted sexual conduct allegations at a rate three to five times higher than some of their respective peers. The three forces noted 10 to 11 allegations per 1,000 employees. The Met registered six per 1,000.

Of its peer group, the Met received the fewest non-sexual assault allegations, including serious assaults, noting 127 per 1,000 employees to GMP’s 232.

Gavin Hales, a police and crime researcher at London Metropolitan University, said the findings probably represented a mixture of factors and an undercounting of incidents. “It’s not really clear whether having lots of complaints is indicative of lots of bad practice or something else . . . Some forces are more likely to be proactive in encouraging complaints than others,” he said, adding that those with low rates of complaints may not be recording them properly.

He added that public bodies needed to investigate the discrepancies, because some forces had had “real problems with conduct and corruption”.

“If you have reliable data, then there’s scope for institutions like Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, or the Home Office, to identify where there may be areas of greater concern,” he said. “Are there forces where there are more or less issues with ethical integrity and culture? At this point we don’t really know.”

In response to the findings, the forces said they take complaints from the public extremely seriously. Nottinghamshire said its figures reflected confidence among victims to come forward, while Bedfordshire said its figures could have been influenced by its small workforce and the diversity of the population it polices. Hertfordshire and GMP said it was not always reliable to compare forces due to variations in recording practices.

Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys did not respond to requests for comment.

The IOPC said it uses the information it gathers to identify trends and inform its work “in driving up standards for the handling of police complaints at force level and nationally”. It said it uses a consistent process to collect the data from forces but “as with any data, there are potential problems, in particular recording errors”.

https://www.ft.com/content/d24e9405-e90 ... 048e778b97

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8392
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by shpalman » Thu Jul 14, 2022 3:34 pm

Humberside Police officer who used 'excessive force' on 'burglars' in Tesco facing sack
On arriving, a male suspect was immediately placed in handcuffs followed by a female suspect. But moments later, PC Green did a leg-sweep on the woman and she fell to the floor with no ability to break her fall as she was handcuffed. He then punched the male suspect in the face while holding metal handcuffs.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by IvanV » Thu Jul 14, 2022 4:02 pm

shpalman wrote:
Thu Jul 14, 2022 3:34 pm
Humberside Police officer who used 'excessive force' on 'burglars' in Tesco facing sack
On arriving, a male suspect was immediately placed in handcuffs followed by a female suspect. But moments later, PC Green did a leg-sweep on the woman and she fell to the floor with no ability to break her fall as she was handcuffed. He then punched the male suspect in the face while holding metal handcuffs.
Those facts are admitted. The question is whether the actions were proportionate in the circumstances of struggling prisoners. It looks like a step forward that the police force sacked him for "excessive force", even though the courts acquitted him of assault. I'm sufficiently suspicious of police motivations, it makes me wonder whether it was a convenient excuse to get rid of him for other reasons.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by jimbob » Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:57 am

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2 ... 399770007/
Two members of the Brookville Police Department are suspended following allegations they arrested a man thought to be anti-police whom they did not want running for town board, which has oversight of the police department.
A court transcript shows Geiser testified that Mitchum ordered Thalheimer’s arrest. It also says the prosecutor was not consulted on alleged DNA evidence.

Thalheimer is unsure whether he will run for office again.

“I do have a bad taste in politics in my mouth,” he said. “But I do love the idea of serving the community. So that is to be determined.”

looks like it worked
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8392
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by shpalman » Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:31 pm

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by monkey » Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:01 pm

shpalman wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:31 pm
Arrested for watering flowers while black
This isn't surprising. But it is surprising it's made big news news.

The reason this isn't surprising is because it is systematic. This is why black kids round here get taught how to behave when approached by police at a young age (be polite, stay calm, and keep your mouth shut). Basically this sort of behavior by the police here is so common that children are taught how to adapt to it, and it doesn't normally get in the newspapers.

I've been told it's worse out in the suburbs and sticks than in the big city, mostly because you are more likely to be stopped for whatevering while black in the first place.

KAJ
Fuzzable
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by KAJ » Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:16 pm

monkey wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:01 pm
shpalman wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:31 pm
Arrested for watering flowers while black
This isn't surprising. But it is surprising it's made big news news.

The reason this isn't surprising is because it is systematic. This is why black kids round here get taught how to behave when approached by police at a young age (be polite, stay calm, and keep your mouth shut). Basically this sort of behavior by the police here is so common that children are taught how to adapt to it, and it doesn't normally get in the newspapers.

I've been told it's worse out in the suburbs and sticks than in the big city, mostly because you are more likely to be stopped for whatevering while black in the first place.
To help understand your comment, where is "round here"?

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by monkey » Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:17 pm

KAJ wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:16 pm
monkey wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:01 pm
shpalman wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 6:31 pm
Arrested for watering flowers while black
This isn't surprising. But it is surprising it's made big news news.

The reason this isn't surprising is because it is systematic. This is why black kids round here get taught how to behave when approached by police at a young age (be polite, stay calm, and keep your mouth shut). Basically this sort of behavior by the police here is so common that children are taught how to adapt to it, and it doesn't normally get in the newspapers.

I've been told it's worse out in the suburbs and sticks than in the big city, mostly because you are more likely to be stopped for whatevering while black in the first place.
To help understand your comment, where is "round here"?
Not far from where the incident happened.

KAJ
Fuzzable
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by KAJ » Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:04 pm

monkey wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:17 pm
KAJ wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:16 pm
monkey wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:01 pm


This isn't surprising. But it is surprising it's made big news news.

The reason this isn't surprising is because it is systematic. This is why black kids round here get taught how to behave when approached by police at a young age (be polite, stay calm, and keep your mouth shut). Basically this sort of behavior by the police here is so common that children are taught how to adapt to it, and it doesn't normally get in the newspapers.

I've been told it's worse out in the suburbs and sticks than in the big city, mostly because you are more likely to be stopped for whatevering while black in the first place.
To help understand your comment, where is "round here"?
Not far from where the incident happened.
Thanks, that's clearer. I guess the situation is somewhat similar in the UK, if much less intense.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10142
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:24 am

KAJ wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:04 pm
monkey wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2022 4:17 pm
KAJ wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:16 pm

To help understand your comment, where is "round here"?
Not far from where the incident happened.
Thanks, that's clearer. I guess the situation is somewhat similar in the UK, if much less intense.
Yeah, anecdotally black and brown kids in the UK talk to each other about how to deal with police attention. Knowing your rights isn't that helpful, because cops routinely ignore them. The key is to do nothing that could seem antagonistic, which can be challenging in a systematically racist framework.

Think it's different for kids in cities with large minority communities, rather than being the only Muslim in the village or whatever.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2509
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Mon Apr 10, 2023 1:49 pm

Greater Manchester Police have just sacked three officers after discovering a WhatsApp group full of derogatory, racist and homophobic comments. PC Ashley Feest, PC Graham Atkinson and Aaron Jones were in a group called “the Dispensables”. Jones resigned as an officer in 2021 after he was convicted of offering to supply Class C drugs (why does he get to resign, rather than be fired, after being found guilty of a criminal offence?)

Jones’ girlfriend, PC Rebekah Kelly, wasn't part of the group but received and failed to report racist and derogatory text messages that he had sent to her. All involved have been put on the College of Policing's Barred List.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2509
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Thu Apr 13, 2023 9:31 pm

More reporting on the Manchester police officers, but a frustrating lack of information beyond that in the initial stories. The Manchester Evening News reports that,
The tribunal heard at least six male police officers were members of a police WhatsApp group titled 'The Dispensables' and subtitled 'the gods of north Manchester who risk their lives every day to f*** jobs off'.
About Manchester report that,
Examples included racist comments about people attending a festival celebrating Eid in Manchester; ableist comments about people with autism; and photos shared of medication which appeared to be steroids.
They say that "Six Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officers have had gross misconduct or misconduct found proven" but only three names have been released. According to the Manchester Evening News,
A tribunal heard other officers have also faced internal disciplinary action, although the chair of the panel ruled these officers could not be named as they were subject to 'private' internal proceedings.
I don't understand why it's not everyone who was in the group who was found to have gross misconduct or misconduct found proven (can I also add that feels like a really tortuous use of the English language) and why they haven't all been fired. Both PC Aaron Jones and PC Ashley Feest had already left the force and the only other person who was fired was Jones' girlfriend, PC Rebekah Kelly, who wasn't even in the group. The Manchester Evening News article has details of the WhatsApp conversations between Jones and Kelly and I have no problem with her being fired as a result of her conduct. What I do have a problem with is that one of the arguments for her firing is that she should have reported his derogatory language yet actual members of the group have been allowed to keep their jobs despite not reporting anything either.

The only other named member of the group, PC Graham Atkinson, was the one who originally set up the group, apparently with benign intentions, but it quickly became full of racism and homophobia which he dismissed as 'banter'. He was also called out for not challenging the derogatory language but claimed that he didn't because he was 'worried about the threat to his life'. He has been given a final written warning and the panel will publish its reasoning at a later date.

It may be that the other people in the group didn't engage with it - I'm sure we're all members of WhatsApp groups we barely look at - but so much of this case reflects situations described in the Casey report (particularly the repeated excuse of 'banter' - I hate that f.cking term so f.cking much) that I can't help but wonder if it's just a case of the police once again protecting their own and only firing those who really gave them no choice (Jones was already fired for selling steroids, it looks like Feest may have been one of his buyers and had resigned, and Kelly really feels like a scapegoat in all this (not saying she shouldn't have been fired, but it does feel like she's being held to a higher level of expectation that the other officers given that most of them have kept their jobs).

I've seen Greater Manchester Police come up in stories about police misconduct and I wouldn't be surprised if they're next in line for a proper investigation along the lines of a Casey report, though I doubt at anywhere near the same scale. The Met isn't unique in its failings, it's just had a few too many very public ones recently. I strongly suspect the GMP has plenty of skeletons in its cupboard that really need exposing.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2509
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Sat Apr 29, 2023 4:20 pm

Two more officers who were members of the 'The Dispensables' WhatsApp group have been 'disciplined', according to the Manchester Evening News. Unfortunately they are unable to give any names and the punishments are minimal.
One was given a written warning while another received 'management' advice. Three other cops were also investigated but did not face disciplinary action as they had 'no case to answer', the police watchdog has confirmed...

Other cops whose names came up in the hearing, including two cops who faced internal disciplinary action, cannot be named. The M.E.N. challenged the ruling but Mr Forster said the two other officers who were disciplined had been the subject of 'private' misconduct meetings rather than a public hearing.
Personally I'm of the opinion that if you are a police officer who has been found guilty of misconduct you don't get to keep your name private. You have a public-facing role so the public should have a right to know who has been found to fall below the standards required of their role.

I honestly don't know how the Independent Office for Police Conduct hasn't sacked everyone who was in that group. The officers in it routinely shared racist, homophobic, misogynistic and ableist views. Even if officers didn't join in, they didn't report what they saw even though they must have known it was in violation of professional standards which makes them complicit. No-one in the group should be trusted with the authority that comes from being a police officer and I honestly don't understand why the IOPC keeps allowing officers off the hook like this.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

temptar
Fuzzable
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun May 10, 2020 6:19 pm

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by temptar » Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:29 am

Not the Met but Leicester police chose not to charge someone with harassment for targeting Stella Creasy's kids to get them taken away from their family. Apparently the person (a man) had the right to do this.

See her insta here https://www.instagram.com/p/CrnA0uUoo-s ... MyMTA2M2Y= but apparently picked up by the Times as well.

This is utter crap.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:26 pm

temptar wrote:
Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:29 am
Not the Met but Leicester police chose not to charge someone with harassment for targeting Stella Creasy's kids to get them taken away from their family. Apparently the person (a man) had the right to do this.

See her insta here https://www.instagram.com/p/CrnA0uUoo-s ... MyMTA2M2Y= but apparently picked up by the Times as well.

This is utter crap.
Any system that can impose judgements that can cause significant harm - be that jail, financial ruin, loss of access to children, bearing in mind also the stress associated with the threat of that judgement - should come with an appropriately serious sanction for those who deliberately abuse the system to target people. Either Leicester Police made a terrible error of judgment, or the laws in question need urgent reform.

User avatar
Boustrophedon
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Boustrophedon » Mon May 01, 2023 10:09 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:26 pm
temptar wrote:
Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:29 am
Not the Met but Leicester police chose not to charge someone with harassment for targeting Stella Creasy's kids to get them taken away from their family. Apparently the person (a man) had the right to do this.

See her insta here https://www.instagram.com/p/CrnA0uUoo-s ... MyMTA2M2Y= but apparently picked up by the Times as well.

This is utter crap.
Any system that can impose judgements that can cause significant harm - be that jail, financial ruin, loss of access to children, bearing in mind also the stress associated with the threat of that judgement - should come with an appropriately serious sanction for those who deliberately abuse the system to target people. Either Leicester Police made a terrible error of judgment, or the laws in question need urgent reform.
I disagree.

Imagine that we are not talking about reporting someone to social services about their children, but instead talking about say, reporting rape. People must feel free to report crimes and concerns where there is harm done or potential for harm. Yes I agree that in this case the complaint was vexatious, but in the long run the only harm done was wasting the time of social services. Protecting the right to report concerns is more important than a media driven knee-jerk reaction to a troll.

I actually believe that Stella Creasy was wrong to publicise this, there should be legal omertà over child protection issues, if only because it might encourage others to try the same thing. Also her children are below the legal age to be able to consent to their names being in the media.

In realistic terms there was never any chance of the children being removed. The mainstream school I worked at repeatedly reported the case of a child whose mother, drug addled and alcoholic, in and out of care herself, was clearly incapable of feeding let alone caring for her child; social services and the family court refused to remove him from his mother and into care.
Perit hic laetatio.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by EACLucifer » Mon May 01, 2023 10:27 am

Boustrophedon wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 10:09 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:26 pm
temptar wrote:
Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:29 am
Not the Met but Leicester police chose not to charge someone with harassment for targeting Stella Creasy's kids to get them taken away from their family. Apparently the person (a man) had the right to do this.

See her insta here https://www.instagram.com/p/CrnA0uUoo-s ... MyMTA2M2Y= but apparently picked up by the Times as well.

This is utter crap.
Any system that can impose judgements that can cause significant harm - be that jail, financial ruin, loss of access to children, bearing in mind also the stress associated with the threat of that judgement - should come with an appropriately serious sanction for those who deliberately abuse the system to target people. Either Leicester Police made a terrible error of judgment, or the laws in question need urgent reform.
I disagree.
Just to be entirely clear, I'm not talking about sanctions for accusation not proven true, I'm talking sanctions for accusation proven to be malicious.

temptar
Fuzzable
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun May 10, 2020 6:19 pm

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by temptar » Mon May 01, 2023 12:00 pm

I think no one disagrees that a valid report should be investigated.

This, however, was an attempt to shut her up ny threatening her kids family life simply because the reporter disagreed with her. The police's response to her complaint was pathetic. And you suggest she should shut up too.

I disagree. And frankly, even if you think nothing would have ever happened, that doesn't change the unwarranted stress experienced by this family just because the mother feels women should not be treated as lesser beings.

They shouldn't be and attempts to silence them by fear should be treated seriously by the police. You wouldn't be saying the same if she got shot, so why tolerate her family life being disrupted?

User avatar
Boustrophedon
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by Boustrophedon » Mon May 01, 2023 12:22 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 10:27 am

Just to be entirely clear, I'm not talking about sanctions for accusation not proven true, I'm talking sanctions for accusation proven to be malicious.
But that still leaves people making bona fide reports, open to the feeling that if the report is not taken seriously they could be open to prosecution.
Perit hic laetatio.

User avatar
Boustrophedon
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Boustrophedon » Mon May 01, 2023 12:31 pm

temptar wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 12:00 pm
I think no one disagrees that a valid report should be investigated.

This, however, was an attempt to shut her up ny threatening her kids family life simply because the reporter disagreed with her. The police's response to her complaint was pathetic. And you suggest she should shut up too.

I disagree. And frankly, even if you think nothing would have ever happened, that doesn't change the unwarranted stress experienced by this family just because the mother feels women should not be treated as lesser beings.

They shouldn't be and attempts to silence them by fear should be treated seriously by the police. You wouldn't be saying the same if she got shot, so why tolerate her family life being disrupted?
As I understand it she was only told after the even and after the allegation had been dismissed. Child protection is more important than the rights of a middle class mother to be free from a little disruption.

Imagine a well connected middle class person abusing their children: Would you feel safe reporting them if this prosecution had gone ahead? That is the freedom that must be protected.

Raising a possible 'shooting' is a stupid straw man that I would have thought beneath you.
Perit hic laetatio.

Post Reply