There is only one of us in this thread about the behaviour of UK cops who will not face up to, "X", and it sure as ◊◊◊◊ ain't me.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The behaviour of UK police officers.
- Thread starter Nessie
- Start date
You don't have clue about the scope of his "private" use of social media, how and where it was shared and with whom. You know there's no point in polishing this turd so you're sprinkling it with glitter. It still not pretty and it still stinks.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The public don't have ANY role in this! Free speech means speech should be free, and people should be free to say and post whatever they want, short of ACTUAL threats and ACTUAL incitement to violence.
And I restate my position, that the Police should NOT be approaching people, turning up to their houses late at night or the early hours of of the morning, knocking on the door and making a nuisance of themselves on the basis of one anonymous complaint about something they are alleged to have said or written. They ought to be investigating and determining if a crime has been committed FIRST, and they are well capable of doing that WITHOUT interviewing that person at all.
I promise you that if any cops came to my door wanting to "check my thinking" regarding some off colour mark I made in a Facebook post, they would be met with this response...
"If you don't have a warrant, and you are not going to arrest me then ◊◊◊◊-off right now."
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,821
Let us talk about the public's role in the rise of the reporting of "hurty words". Do you agree there is often hypocrisy and misrepresentation? For example, people claiming Lucy Connelly was just using hurty words when she incited the burning out of refugees from hotels during a national riot. What she said is played down by people, who, if others called for them to burned out of their homes, would demand police action.
How about the trans community, who have undoubtedly suffered from prejudice and criminal acts directed at them because of hatred. But, there are also trans people who have weaponised hurty words and use them to pressure the police to take action against those they hate and disagree with.
What about the role of social commentators and journalists, who seek to make money by posting stories and comment that is designed to make people angry, to get attention and make money. How corrosive to society is their influence?
Last edited:
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,821
The problem is the public who disregard you and put pressure on the police to act against other, demanding that you do get a knock on the door. That sort of report was rare in my time. It was pretty much limited to nuisance phone calls. The rise of social media has made it much worse. You only want the police to act when there are threats, but what about harassment? People's lives can be ruined by stalkers and harassment, so why are you not against that?
You are one opinion amongst many about what counts as hurty words and free speech, whereby you arrogantly think there is your way and no one else is right. The police need to deal with all members of the public and their opinions on the matter.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Resist that pressure. Investigate the complaint by looking at what was written and deciding if it breaks the law THEN go door knocking. If it doesn't, then tell the complainant to stop wasting police time, and inform them that if they make any more frivolous complaints, they will be charged with making a false report to the police. That would put a stop to people like Lynsay Watson.
I mean, come on, you cant tell me that the Police go and interview criminals at their homes to determine if they have committed crime or not!
Example: Are you old enough to remember the Brink's-Mat Robbery... £26 million worth of gold bullion, diamonds, and cash stolen from a warehouse operated by Brink's-Mat at the Heathrow International Trading Estate? The Police eventually nobbled 13 people for it - Anthony Black, Micky & Kathleen McAvoy, Brian Robinson, Kenneth Noye, Garth Chappell, Brian Reader, Matteo Constantino, Michael Relton, Gordon Parry, Brian Perry, Patrick Clark, and Jean Savage for it. Be honest now, do you think the cops all turned up at these people's residence in the middle of the night to "check their thinking", or to go through their wives' underwear drawers looking for evidence?
Well, of course they didn't. They did what REAL POLICEMEN DO, investigated the crime without talking to any of them, gathering evidence and building a case.
Harrassment IS a threat
Actual harrassment, yes, but there is still NO REASON they cannot investigate that BEFORE visting the the alleger harasser
And again, I will bash this drum, and I will keep bashing it until I knock some commonsense into yout head!!
Investigate first, and if it breaks the law, then, AND ONLY THEN take action. Otherwise, send the complainant home with a flea in his ear.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Here is an interview that is worth watching. "Triggernometry", Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster (and I can feel all the loony lefties rolling their eyes all the way over here in New Zealand) interview Simeon Todorov, a former Met police officer who resigned over what he was being force to learn under threat of dismissal.
It is almost an hour and a half long, but for those who are genuinely interested in how the UK Police have lost their way, and lost the confidence and respect of the public, this interview brings receipts and a lot of answers. Mr Todorov is Bulgarian, and his accent can be difficult to follow at times, but I found him a very interesting listen.
It is almost an hour and a half long, but for those who are genuinely interested in how the UK Police have lost their way, and lost the confidence and respect of the public, this interview brings receipts and a lot of answers. Mr Todorov is Bulgarian, and his accent can be difficult to follow at times, but I found him a very interesting listen.
Last edited:
The assumption seems to be that the police at one time hadn't lost their way. I refute that. At the worse some police have been overly enthusiastic after watching their yearly 30 minute HR videos on discrimination and the like. Most haven't, as we see in the statistics they continue to be as badly behaved as ever.
But we should recognise that there have been changes and changes for the better, whether that be PACE or the setting up of specialist police departments to handle the likes of rape (not all police forces) Obviously these changes have not gone deep enough, but again the real issues with the police aren't that they have become political correct.
The Common Potato
Muse
The police are seemingly unable to look at the claim of hurty and pretty quickly deciding whether whatever it is is actually hurty before they go round mob handed and say we have had a complaint about hurty. Nessie, it's not hard, this stuff.
A rational approach does not start with why do millions of kids believe that Santa exists; it look at the evidence for Santa's existence. You're defending dumb idiocy. Why? And do not quote the law or
The Common Potato
Muse
I'm a former-Kipper but remaining righty but don't like KK or trigger...
The Common Potato
Muse
"Do you agree there is often hypocrisy and misrepresentation?"
Yes, from the police. The Met (Sir M and the mayor) stating crime is down and there's nothing to worry about, 'cos - look! - fewer murders and rapes. Nessie, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stop pretending that this little forum or any debate shop ever has anything to do with reality.The cops are instinctually and institutionally thick and dishonest.
Yes, from the police. The Met (Sir M and the mayor) stating crime is down and there's nothing to worry about, 'cos - look! - fewer murders and rapes. Nessie, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stop pretending that this little forum or any debate shop ever has anything to do with reality.The cops are instinctually and institutionally thick and dishonest.
The Common Potato
Muse
No, you can't cope without having a box to tick (no, not woke / dei - so don't go there) and a procedure to follow.
A month ago, I was worried about my neighbour actually being alive so I phoned 999. Go away. The next day I received a shirty email, saying it's none of the police's business and I ought to have phone the ambulance. It didn't occur for them to do that, did it, Nessie?
FWIW, my neighbour was fine - what happened to let us know?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
"Crime is down" is not a result of crime actually going down, its because the public are so fed up with the lack of Police response, they don't bother reporting it.
ohms
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,768
This is not true. The ONS does quarterly crime surveys which show crime trending downwards for the last 10 years or so, with the exception of fraud which has been trending upwards. The latest summary to March 2026 is here https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ns/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2026
No - it is down, we use the recorded crimes and the national crime survey for England and Wales to track crime rates. From ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ns/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2026
ETA: Ninja'd
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,821
The flaws with your demand, are that you are not investigating intent and you are ignoring that there are usually two sides to a story. Only a certain amount of enquiry can be done, without speaking to the accused. You are advocating for half arsed, incomplete investigations. Real police officers know that speaking to the accused and getting their side of the story, is a vital part of any investigation, especially if the complainer is a bad actor and rather than being sent away with a flea in their ear, they can be charged with wasting the time of the police or perverting the course of justice.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,821
Some police are poor at determining if hurty words are breaking the existing hate or communication laws. That is part of the problem. Not very bright officers are recruited and poorly trained and led. They are put under pressure to detect and reduce hate or communication crimes, so there is a temptation to get detections, which is the main metric the police use to measure success.
Deciding what hurty words break the law and what do not, involves second guessing what the courts will decide and people are inconsistent and have double standards over what is hurty and what is not. At what point, does the repeated use of hurty words become harassment? Has a literal threat been made "I am going to kill you", or was it just intended to be figurative?
A lot of hate towards the police has come from bad actors, misrepresenting incidents, often to gain notoriety, attention and to make money. Lucy Connelly is a prime example of that.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,821
In my day, you would have been cut from using 999, as that call is not an emergency. A 111 report would be taken and officers sent to do a welfare check. I suspect that now, since so many welfare checks are false alarms, the police have stopped making them.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,821
Plus there are other sources of crime statistics, such as how many people seek medical treatment for knife wounds, or after being assaulted.
I agree - welfare checks when there isn't a worry about a possible crime shouldn't be done by the police at all, but we do know that there a lot of areas in which the police "pick up the slack" when it should be a different agencies' job.s