The behaviour of UK police officers.

[smartcooky]

And still it seems to be taboo on this thread to mention Stuart Campbell, detained for 15 hours and all his devices seized for a tweet that read "[female journalist writing for well-known red-top tabloid] is an absolute disgrace" some years ago. Then had police banging on his door at two in the morning a few weeks ago over a couple of other entirely legal tweets about someone else.

The Plague

Ever-alert Wings readers will be aware that for the past three and a half years or so I’ve been the target of a campaign by disgraced former policeman Lynsay Watson, who over that period has …

wingsoverscotland.com

Yeah, I forgot about him. That Lynsay Watson, is a proper creep isn't he!!

 

[Darat]

Statistics don't prove that numerous well-attested incidents didn't happen.

Man bites dog is a headline, dog bites man isn’t.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, I forgot about him. That Lynsay Watson, is a proper creep isn't he!!

He's pernicious. He makes out he's an entire organisation when it's just him, but on the other hand there is a handful of them acting individually who also back each other up. Stephanie Hayden springs to mind, and Fred Wallace, and that kid they call Tarquin who is under their wing but also a very nasty piece of work in his own right. And one word from any of them has the police forces of this sceptred isle scrambling to arrest their persecutors for misgendering, harassment and hate crimes. They belong to the holy protected class of the marginalised and vulnerable you see (even though they are nothing of the sort), and the people they are targeting don't.

Darn, I forgot Euan (Sophie Molly) and the Aberdeen polycule!

 

[smartcooky]

You are exaggerating about what happens if someone films outside a police office. People are still entitled to privacy and to not be filmed going in or out of a police office. Someone filming people will deter some from being seen going into the office. That is why it is reasonably challenged.

Not he is not...

this one

this one

this one

and

this one

It took me less time to find these than to copy/paste the URLs into this post. There are dozens of these, just in the UK alone!

Getting the public to speak to the police is hard enough at times, without idiots filming and being nosey. Public engagement, especially with groups such as LGBTQ and ethnic minorities, is important. Of course right wing insensitive idiots will ridicule the police when they do engage.

NO, this is what gets them ridiculed - and rightly so...

Have you any idea what it costs t signwrite a van like that? Its in the £thousands, and there were dozens of police vehicles signwritten like that.

Police bleat about not having the resources to do their job properly, and then they are engaging in an obscene waste of taxpayer moneyon this rubbish. Its unconscionable!!

 

[Rolfe]

Not only that, this isn't just pretty colours, it signals a real agenda. The police really have been primed to protect and indulge the Sacred Trans (marginalised and vulnerable, y'know), and to come down on anyone accused of being "transphobic". See a number of earlier posts on this issue. Anyone who protests, even with just a banner or a t-shirt, near a pro-trans event is liable to be removed by the police for causing offence, or causing obstruction. In contrast when trans activists mob a women's rights event with threatening behaviour and loud noise, police (if they respond at all) protect the trans activists, telling the women that it's their right to free speech.

We know this, and many of us find these colours threatening. In the words of the precious trans flowers, they make us feel unsafe. The trans part of the flag signifies the abolition of women's rights and the mutilation of confused children, as far as we are concerned. How can it be right that the police fly the flag of one side and one side only in such a contested debate? Nobody is demanding that the police fly the suffragette flag, and indeed I haven't noticed them marking International Women's Day or even days designated for the recognition of disabled people, it only seems to be Pride that gets the treatment. What is sought is that police remain professionally neutral and do their job without favouring one side or the other. All they have to do is react appropriately to what they see people do, not form protective cordons round screaming pro-trans mobs hurling bottles of urine around while frogmarching off someone with a placard saying "children cannot consent to puberty blockers".

 

[The Common Potato]

Is Policing a bit like knitting or dogging?

 

[theprestige]

Probably a bit like dogging.

 

[Nessie]

Did the SNP manifesto require standards of recruitment to be dropped whereby rapists and criminals could join the force to meet the numbers?

Who was it that carried out the vetting and subsequent recruitment of candidates, was it the SNP?

Who was it that decided to keep all these unsuitable recruits, was it the SNP?

No, it was senior management in each of the forces. They were so keen to do the government's bidding, they dropped standards.

 

[Nessie]

Not he is not...

this one

this one

this one

and

this one

It took me less time to find these than to copy/paste the URLs into this post. There are dozens of these, just in the UK alone!


NO, this is what gets them ridiculed - and rightly so...

Have you any idea what it costs t signwrite a van like that? Its in the £thousands, and there were dozens of police vehicles signwritten like that.

Police bleat about not having the resources to do their job properly, and then they are engaging in an obscene waste of taxpayer moneyon this rubbish. Its unconscionable!!

Whilst filming in public is not necessarily illegal, obstructing the police in the execution of their duty is and deterring people from attending police officers as they may be filmed, is an obstruction. Many of the people who engage in such filming are bad actors, out to cause trouble and they seek attention, squealing when they get it, as the more attritional the contact with the police is, the more clicks they will get when they post the video online.

The police are right to improve engagement with sections of the community, such as LGBTQ+, who have suffered from prejudicial treatment and under reporting of crime. For people not from those sections of the community, there is a lack of understanding of the issues they face and I suspect that many of the objections to improving police engagement, is down to prejudice against those communities.

 

[Nessie]

Not only that, this isn't just pretty colours, it signals a real agenda. The police really have been primed to protect and indulge the Sacred Trans (marginalised and vulnerable, y'know), and to come down on anyone accused of being "transphobic". See a number of earlier posts on this issue. Anyone who protests, even with just a banner or a t-shirt, near a pro-trans event is liable to be removed by the police for causing offence, or causing obstruction. In contrast when trans activists mob a women's rights event with threatening behaviour and loud noise, police (if they respond at all) protect the trans activists, telling the women that it's their right to free speech.

We know this, and many of us find these colours threatening. In the words of the precious trans flowers, they make us feel unsafe. The trans part of the flag signifies the abolition of women's rights and the mutilation of confused children, as far as we are concerned. How can it be right that the police fly the flag of one side and one side only in such a contested debate? Nobody is demanding that the police fly the suffragette flag, and indeed I haven't noticed them marking International Women's Day or even days designated for the recognition of disabled people, it only seems to be Pride that gets the treatment. What is sought is that police remain professionally neutral and do their job without favouring one side or the other. All they have to do is react appropriately to what they see people do, not form protective cordons round screaming pro-trans mobs hurling bottles of urine around while frogmarching off someone with a placard saying "children cannot consent to puberty blockers".

The police have been trained to put aside their prejudices and to improve engagement with marginalised sections of the community, where crime is under reported. The issues you describe happen because too many police officers anchor and pick the side that makes their life a bit easier, as they go for low hanging fruit arrests.

 

[Rolfe]

Cool story bro. Completely divorced from reality, though.

 

[Darat]

Oh dear, yet another single, bad apple

Police officer who has shown 'no remorse over his actions' loses career

William Matthews would have been sacked if he had not already resigned

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

(Sorry it’s a local newspaper link.)

 

[smartcooky]

Whilst filming in public is not necessarily illegal, obstructing the police in the execution of their duty is and deterring people from attending police officers as they may be filmed, is an obstruction. Many of the people who engage in such filming are bad actors, out to cause trouble and they seek attention, squealing when they get it, as the more attritional the contact with the police is, the more clicks they will get when they post the video online.

The Police are being dumb here. By biting on the bait offer by these auditors, they are feeding them the attention they need.... its a variation of the Streisand effect.

The police are right to improve engagement with sections of the community, such as LGBTQ+, who have suffered from prejudicial treatment and under reporting of crime. For people not from those sections of the community, there is a lack of understanding of the issues they face and I suspect that many of the objections to improving police engagement, is down to prejudice against those communities.

Improve engagement? Sure, but there are better ways to do this besides pandering to a political activist minority group.

They Police are taking sides in this debate, as @Rolfe will tell you - she has experienced this first hand (see the first paragraph of her post #3765

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I have to reset my X account again? Meh...

Larry is on BlueSky too.

 

[bluesjnr]

Oh dear, yet another single, bad apple

Police officer who has shown 'no remorse over his actions' loses career

William Matthews would have been sacked if he had not already resigned

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

(Sorry it’s a local newspaper link.)

We really do need to stop focusing, at all, on the source. What matters is the content, if it is true and is presented as such.

For example, below is a link to the Hearing Outcome (downloadable PDF) for the officer you've linked to. My link comes from a site hosted by just one section of the biggest shower of conniving, morally bankrupt, egotistical, tyrants in this country. Yes, that's right, it's from the Cheshire Police.

 

[Darat]

We really do need to stop focusing, at all, on the source. What matters is the content, if it is true and is presented as such.

My apology was because of how the Reach local newspaper sites are full of pop-ups, auto play videos, adverts and the like to almost the point of complete inaccessibility!

For example, below is a link to the Hearing Outcome (downloadable PDF) for the officer you've linked to. My link comes from a site hosted by just one section of the biggest shower of conniving, morally bankrupt, egotistical, tyrants in this country. Yes, that's right, it's from the Cheshire Police.

Link to the full judgement: https://www.cheshire.police.uk/SysS...isconduct-hearing-matthews-10-august-2026.pdf

 

[Rolfe]

The Police are taking sides in this debate, as @Rolfe will tell you - she has experienced this first hand (see the first paragraph of her post #3765

Here is what happened outside the Scottish Parliament during an organised and officially approved rally for women's rights. Tom Harlow, a male stripper and trans activist, set up an extremely loud sound system on a small decorative peninsula in the pond and blasted "music" at earsplitting volume so that the women speaking could not be heard. He had no permission or approval to do this and he was breaching noise-level regulations. Police stood guard over him and prevented the women from approaching him.



The police even had a shift rota organised.



There's a great picture from a different angle that shows the peninsula in its entirety, with Harlow sitting entirely surrounded by water apart from the narrow isthmus which is being diligently guarded by the cops.

When one woman did succeed in accessing the peninsula and remonstrating with him, not so much on behalf of the women's rally but for another group nearby who were quietly trying to read out the names of dead children and who were also being drowned out, he wielded an open rainbow golf umbrella, moving it so that it was always between him and her. At one point when she almost overbalanced as the umbrella was threatening to push her into the water, she took hold of its edge.



Photographic evidence shows that two spokes of the umbrella were broken from the start, well before Susan approached him, and the part of the umbrella she touched was not the broken part. However Harlow then went to the police and claimed that she had damaged his umbrella. The police initially indicated that she was going to be charged with criminal damage, until the outcry over the whole thing, plus video footage of the entire incident from several different angles showing that she had not caused the damage, caused them to back off with weaselly excuses.

The initial police response to criticism was to insist that Harlow was merely exercising his right to free speech in a public place and they could do nothing to stop him, indeed it was their job to facilitate and protect him. Also that any complaint about noise regulations wasn't their remit, and should be addressed to the city council.

Compare that to the many reports of police frogmarching people away from pro-trans rallies who were merely standing there with a written placard, on the grounds that such behaviour is disruptive and harassing.

 

[Rolfe]

My apology was because of how the Reach local newspaper sites are full of pop-ups, auto play videos, adverts and the like to almost the point of complete inaccessibility!

Link to the full judgement: https://www.cheshire.police.uk/SysS...isconduct-hearing-matthews-10-august-2026.pdf

"Reader View" (in Firefox, I don't know about other browsers) fixes that beautifully.

 

[bluesjnr]

My apology was because of how the Reach local newspaper sites are full of pop-ups, auto play videos, adverts and the like to almost the point of complete inaccessibility!

Link to the full judgement: https://www.cheshire.police.uk/SysS...isconduct-hearing-matthews-10-august-2026.pdf

Forgot to post link - thanks!

 

[bluesjnr]

Just in case - I don't care for anybody's opinion of the source it's the material presented that is relevant.

Turns out preaching in the UK is worthy of the attention of plod. This officer wants to interpret the teachings in the worst possible way. Why do you think he wants to do this?

Correct! To put an individual on the wrong side of the law from the outset.

Having said that, this seems to be happening when some kind of protest or march is underway. I suspect it might be pride march given what the cop says during the interaction. Is he right to accost the preacher in this instance?

Has the cop heard of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998?