The behaviour of UK police officers.

[theprestige]

Which in the case of swearing in front of police officers, is not clear cut.

The way I see it, when it's not clear to a police officer what's really going on, they have only three options, all of which are pretty straightforward:

One, they can reserve judgement and withhold action of any kind, until they know more.

Two, they can detain persons of interest while they conduct an investigation so they can learn more.

Three, in extremis, they can immediately and drastically escalate to the levels of violence typically reserved for the agents of the state.

Youths swearing at cops is pretty obviously a matter for the first option. If the cops aren't sure what to do about such verbal abuse, they can simply do nothing. Maybe ask their sergeant for clarification, at the next roll call.

You're the only one insinuating that cops should act when they have no clear idea what action should be taken.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Traffic Cop Nick Lovatt sacked after committing more than 20 driving offences
He was also found to have lied to another police officer

A fan favourite of the popular Channel 5 show Traffic Cops has been sacked following a misconduct hearing

In a misconduct hearing held on Wednesday, September 2, conducted by Chief Constable Simon Blatchly, PC Lovatt was found to have driven two motorbikes without insurance or valid MOT repeatedly

He admitted to have driven his own motorbike without insurance and whilst it was registered as SORN (not taxed and without a valid MOT) 16 times between September 16 and November 25, 2025.

In addition, he drove a second vehicle, which was owned by a close acquaintance and had an expired MOT and was SORN, six times in September and October 2025

Whilst PC Lovatt admitted the allegations, he denied acting dishonestly or without integrity and also denied gross misconduct.

Traffic Cop sacked after committing more than 20 driving offences

He was also found to have lied to another police officer

www.derbytelegraph.co.uk

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Marginalised? Don't make me laugh. The trans lobby has governments, big business, education and law enforcement dancing at its beck and call thanks to Stonewall and their "diversity champions" scheme. The police force decking itself out in the livery of one side of a highly contested political debate (the one that consistently loses in court, incidentally) and lionising its representatives while acting as their personal goon squad to attack the opposing side in the debate is not "improving engagement". It's also not down to individual police officers. These rainbow badges and epaulettes and wraps on police vehicles clearly demonstrate a decided policy.

 

[Rolfe]

That is because many members of the public consider it to be worthy attention of the police. Stop looking at incidents in isolation and consider the role the public play.

"The public" are a heterogenous bunch. On the one hand we have people who have been the victims of crimes such as burglary, theft and assault, who would very much like the police to help them by identifying and apprehending the perpetrators. Sometimes they can even identify the perpetrator to the police. But somehow, that sort of thing is seldom considered worthy of attention.

On the other hand we have people who use the "hate crime" laws to urge the police to harass people they are engaged in a feud with. These people usually make multiple complaints against different people within a fairly short space of time. The police turn up mob-handed to arrest the alleged miscreant, often in the middle of the night, and insist they have no discretion in the matter.

More than 60,000 arrested in 'chilling curb of free speech'

A major free speech row erupted last night after it was revealed that more than 60,000 people have been arrested over the past five years for 'communications offences'.

www.dailymail.com

TOBY YOUNG: Stop policing our tweets and start policing streets

The number of people being arrested for things they've said online, as revealed by Big Brother Watch in The Mail on Sunday, is deeply alarming.

www.dailymail.com

Blaming "the public" for vindictive people who make vexatious complaints about being offended by a tweet isn't good enough. The police need to take responsibility for assessing the motives and credibility of the complainer, and whether an actual offence has been committed.

 

[Nessie]

"The public" are a heterogenous bunch. On the one hand we have people who have been the victims of crimes such as burglary, theft and assault, who would very much like the police to help them by identifying and apprehending the perpetrators. Sometimes they can even identify the perpetrator to the police. But somehow, that sort of thing is seldom considered worthy of attention.

On the other hand we have people who use the "hate crime" laws to urge the police to harass people they are engaged in a feud with. These people usually make multiple complaints against different people within a fairly short space of time. The police turn up mob-handed to arrest the alleged miscreant, often in the middle of the night, and insist they have no discretion in the matter.

More than 60,000 arrested in 'chilling curb of free speech'

A major free speech row erupted last night after it was revealed that more than 60,000 people have been arrested over the past five years for 'communications offences'.

www.dailymail.com

TOBY YOUNG: Stop policing our tweets and start policing streets

The number of people being arrested for things they've said online, as revealed by Big Brother Watch in The Mail on Sunday, is deeply alarming.

www.dailymail.com

Blaming "the public" for vindictive people who make vexatious complaints about being offended by a tweet isn't good enough. The police need to take responsibility for assessing the motives and credibility of the complainer, and whether an actual offence has been committed.

Have you anything other than anecdotes to back up your suggestion that the police have virtually stopped attending some crimes and now pour all resources into hurty words?

Reports of housebreaking and assault have all dropped, whilst the public have inundated the police with complaints about hurty words.

You are correct that sometimes, there are some police officers who show poor judgement when they received a complaint about hurty words.

 

[Rolfe]

Here we go again. "The public". Maybe start remembering that people are individuals, not a homogeneous bloc called "the public".

Sometimes the plural of anecdote really is data. Did you even look at these two articles?

 

[Darat]

Traffic Cop Nick Lovatt sacked after committing more than 20 driving offences
He was also found to have lied to another police officer

A fan favourite of the popular Channel 5 show Traffic Cops has been sacked following a misconduct hearing

In a misconduct hearing held on Wednesday, September 2, conducted by Chief Constable Simon Blatchly, PC Lovatt was found to have driven two motorbikes without insurance or valid MOT repeatedly

He admitted to have driven his own motorbike without insurance and whilst it was registered as SORN (not taxed and without a valid MOT) 16 times between September 16 and November 25, 2025.

In addition, he drove a second vehicle, which was owned by a close acquaintance and had an expired MOT and was SORN, six times in September and October 2025

Whilst PC Lovatt admitted the allegations, he denied acting dishonestly or without integrity and also denied gross misconduct.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/traffic-cop-nick-lovatt-sacked-11145497.amp

What I don't get in a case like his is how could he be so stupid?

 

[Darat]

"The public" are a heterogenous bunch. On the one hand we have people who have been the victims of crimes such as burglary, theft and assault, who would very much like the police to help them by identifying and apprehending the perpetrators. Sometimes they can even identify the perpetrator to the police. But somehow, that sort of thing is seldom considered worthy of attention.

On the other hand we have people who use the "hate crime" laws to urge the police to harass people they are engaged in a feud with. These people usually make multiple complaints against different people within a fairly short space of time. The police turn up mob-handed to arrest the alleged miscreant, often in the middle of the night, and insist they have no discretion in the matter.

More than 60,000 arrested in 'chilling curb of free speech'

A major free speech row erupted last night after it was revealed that more than 60,000 people have been arrested over the past five years for 'communications offences'.

www.dailymail.com

TOBY YOUNG: Stop policing our tweets and start policing streets

The number of people being arrested for things they've said online, as revealed by Big Brother Watch in The Mail on Sunday, is deeply alarming.

www.dailymail.com

Blaming "the public" for vindictive people who make vexatious complaints about being offended by a tweet isn't good enough. The police need to take responsibility for assessing the motives and credibility of the complainer, and whether an actual offence has been committed.

What percentage of the arrests are for what you consider should be non-actionable posts etc. compared to actionable posts etc?

 

[Darat]

Here we go again. "The public". Maybe start remembering that people are individuals, not a homogeneous bloc called "the public".

Sometimes the plural of anecdote really is data. Did you even look at these two articles?

The Daily Mail article is a rehash of its greatest hits and a report about a report due out, if there are so many terrible arrests happening why does the DM rehash the same ones time and time again? (And why they keep using Connolly I don't know, she admitted her guilt in a court of law.)

 

[Darat]

I'm glad Big Brother Watch Ltd has compiled a report, assuming it is a good report it will give actual statistics to look at. I do think for many pieces of legislation and especially criminal legislation there should be a statutory duty for its impact to be measured for several years, especially in light of it often requiring court cases to settle the meaning of the legislation.

 

[smartcooky]

(And why they keep using Connolly I don't know,she admitted her guilt in a court of law.)

... by taking very bad advice from a useless duty solicitor. If he had advised her to plead not guilty, then she likely would have been found not guilty...... evidence Ricky Jones, that nasty Labour Party local councillor from Dartford, Kent, who was charged about the same time, and who actually DID directly threaten members of the public, verbally in front of witnesses, in a tirade far worse than anything Connolly said.

Jones was addressing a large crowd through a microphone, calling far-right protesters "disgusting Nazi fascists" and saying, "we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all," while gesturing across his neck. At his trial he apologized, claiming he spoke in the "heat of the moment" and didn't mean his words literally. The jury found him not guilty of encouraging violent disorder.

Apparently the fact that Connolly apologise and posted her post in the heat if the moment did didn't count for Jack ◊◊◊◊ did it?

 

[ohms]

Apparently the fact that Connolly apologise and posted her post in the heat if the moment did didn't count for Jack ◊◊◊◊ did it?

Not true, it was taken into account for her sentencing:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Connollysentence.pdf

In other news, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has released a new report on reforms to policing praising progress in some areas while also mentioning areas still coming up short

However, Michelle said many forces still need to improve the basics of policing, particularly:

• investigating crime, with too many victims not receiving the quality of investigation or service they should expect;
• responding to the public, including how forces identify risk and vulnerability at first point of contact and how quickly they attend incidents; and
• safeguarding, where some forces need to do more to identify vulnerability earlier, take action to reduce harm and work effectively with other agencies to protect those most at risk.

Summary, along with link to the report, here:

https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/police-reform-is-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-to-substantially-improve-the-service-provided-to-public/

 

[Darat]

... by taking very bad advice from a useless duty solicitor. If he had advised her to plead not guilty, then she likely would have been found not guilty...... ...snip...

I doubt that given the sentence and comments from the judgement.

 

[smartcooky]

I doubt that given the sentence and comments from the judgement.

If she had plead not guilty, it would have gone to trial - by jury... the judge many not have got a say.

 

[Darat]

If she had plead not guilty, it would have gone to trial - by jury... the judge many not have got a say.

Which she could have chosen to do so but she didn't because she knew she was guilty, if I recall correctly she did initially plead not-guilty.

 

[Nessie]

Here we go again. "The public". Maybe start remembering that people are individuals, not a homogeneous bloc called "the public".

Sometimes the plural of anecdote really is data. Did you even look at these two articles?

The police are also not a homogenous bloc. I have seen the articles and many more, about the push back against the police dealing with complaints about tweets. That starts with the public not complaining about pish tweets to the police and the police getting better at telling people their complaint is pish.

 

[Nessie]

... by taking very bad advice from a useless duty solicitor. If he had advised her to plead not guilty, then she likely would have been found not guilty...... evidence Ricky Jones, that nasty Labour Party local councillor from Dartford, Kent, who was charged about the same time, and who actually DID directly threaten members of the public, verbally in front of witnesses, in a tirade far worse than anything Connolly said.

Jones was addressing a large crowd through a microphone, calling far-right protesters "disgusting Nazi fascists" and saying, "we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all," while gesturing across his neck. At his trial he apologized, claiming he spoke in the "heat of the moment" and didn't mean his words literally. The jury found him not guilty of encouraging violent disorder.

Apparently the fact that Connolly apologise and posted her post in the heat if the moment did didn't count for Jack ◊◊◊◊ did it?

The advice from the solicitor would be;

1 - plead guilty and say sorry and get the lightest sentence possible over as quickly as possible.
2 - plead guilty, try and justify what you said and show no remorse, go for the cause celebre and right wing protest, and get a longer sentence.
3 - plead not guilty and go to trial and if you are found innocent, good, otherwise if you are found guilty you will go to prison for longer after a delay because of the time it will take for the trial to take place.

Connolly, not the solicitor chose option 1. She did not get bad advice. Jones took a risk going for option 3 and if he had been found guilty, would you have argued he gt bad advice?

 

[Rolfe]

The police are also not a homogenous bloc. I have seen the articles and many more, about the push back against the police dealing with complaints about tweets. That starts with the public not complaining about pish tweets to the police and the police getting better at telling people their complaint is pish.

The police are doing their job. They have instructions and orders and SOPs. They (supposedly) have to meet basic standards of intelligence to get the job.

The public is everybody. The public has no instructions and orders and SOPs. Nobody is barred from being a member of the public due to stupidity or vicious nastiness. It is not possible to prevent "the public" from complaining about trivial and vexatious matters. Do better, police.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A police sergeant who showed colleagues an "offensive" meme referring to a "date rape" drug while working as a supervisor has been dismissed without notice.

David Brenchley, who worked for Thames Valley Police, was also alleged to have touched a female officer in an "inappropriate and overly familiar" way in 2021 and to have made "inappropriate and unprofessional comments" on a number of occasions in 2025.

These included sexualised innuendos, as well as homophobic and misogynistic comments.

While Brenchley disputed six of the eight allegations, a misconduct panel found all of them to be proved and ruled that the totality of them amounted to gross misconduct.

Thames Valley sergeant who showed colleague 'offensive' meme sacked

David Brenchley faced eight allegations which were proven and overall amounted to gross misconduct.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[smartcooky]

The advice from the solicitor would be;

1 - plead guilty and say sorry and get the lightest sentence possible over as quickly as possible.
2 - plead guilty, try and justify what you said and show no remorse, go for the cause celebre and right wing protest, and get a longer sentence.
3 - plead not guilty and go to trial and if you are found innocent, good, otherwise if you are found guilty you will go to prison for longer after a delay because of the time it will take for the trial to take place.

Connolly, not the solicitor chose option 1. She did not get bad advice. Jones took a risk going for option 3 and if he had been found guilty, would you have argued he gt bad advice?

Wrong. She has stated repeatedly that the solicitor strongly recommended she take what you have called option 1