• 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.

smartcooky said:
I can tell you that when I was in the Air Force in the 1980s, if I had told an Airwoman "I hope you get raped on your way home" I would have been up on a Section 73 (Conduct Prejudicial to Service Discipline) and a Section 42 (Cruel or Disgraceful Conduct) within the hour, found guilty and been dishonourably discharged by the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Can you evidence that ever happening? I still say that one comment, no matter how bad, is not enough for the sack. It is enough for disciplinary action, but for it to be the sack, there should be a course of conduct.
 
Nessie said:
Can you evidence that ever happening? I still say that one comment, no matter how bad, is not enough for the sack. It is enough for disciplinary action, but for it to be the sack, there should be a course of conduct.
Click to expand...
We don't know if it was only one comment - do we?
 
Nessie said:
I see two inexperienced, poorly led young police officers, who genuinely think they are doing the right thing and enforcing with the law. They get it horribly wrong, as other police officers are getting it wrong, trying to police hurty words.

As for "actual crime", it is the public who have made hurty words actual crime. Fewer people are reporting "actual crimes" like housebreaking and assault, because those crimes have been falling for decades now. Online crime, like fraud and many of the instances of hurty words are on the rise and the police have been too slow to react to the change.
Click to expand...

I see a couple of girls taking pleasure in wielding the power and authority they have been given, against a bewildered woman who is absolutely no threat to them.

"The public", as a body, never asked for "hurty words" to be criminalised. A subsection of the public, a vindictive and nasty subsection, is using ill-conceived legislation to harass people they don't like, using the willing and compliant police as their personal goon squad.
 
Darat said:
A very, very, very, very small number.
Click to expand...
... and it only takes a very, very, very, very small number of committed vindictive people to impact lot of people.

One person, Lynsay Watson, has submitted criminal complaints to the police against three people
• Stuart Campbell
• Graham Linehan
• Helen Joyce.

He has also instigated public law challenges and court actions directly against at least four public and policing institutions:
• The Police Appeals Tribunal
• The British Transport Police Federation
• Greater Manchester Police
• Leicestershire Police

Its not just the individuals he has filed against who are impacted - its family, friends and colleagues who are affected as well. This single thoroughly nasty, vindictive individual has caused a lot of people harm through the use of poorly written, ill-conceived and unjust laws.

Of course, the outcomes of all this spurious litigation is that the courts have handed him his arse every time...

• Against Greater Manchester Police (Stuart Campbell Case): Defeated.
• Against Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Helen Joyce Case): Defeated.
• Against Metropolitan Police (Graham Linehan Case): Defeated, and the Police apologised unreservedly to Linehan
• Against Leicestershire Police: Claims Struck Out.
• Against the Police Appeals Tribunal: Unsuccessful.

But I'm pretty sure he would have had a fair idea he would not win, but that would not matter to him - . His aim is, and has always been, maximum disruption to the lives of the people he hates. The process IS the punishment!

Now while the above does wander a bit off the topic of Police behaviour, I say its relevant, because when you have bad laws, and a woke law enforcement establishment, you enable nasty people like Watson to take advantage of both for nefarious purposes, and that makes it more likely that cops indoctrinated in the system will behave the way they have been.
 
Last edited:
It's not that far from the topic. Lynsay Watson has the distinction of having been dismissed by the police for gross misconduct - twice. He himself is an ex-cop. His behaviour is driven by this, knowing the system and knowing how to play it. He also has some sort of law qualification. He represents himself as a litigant in person, so he has no expenses except his time. Since he doesn't work (possibly he is above retirement age now, but he gets benefits of some sort) and this is his hobby, it's all gravy to him.

The strange part of it all is that despite the circumstances of his dismissal he seems to be able to get multiple police forces to jump to it and do his bidding, while complaints against him are ignored or fobbed off. Not every police officer is wise to his behaviour, and Stuart's description of the young policewoman's face as he launched into a detailed description of Watson's record is quite something. But most forces know who he is and what he's up to, and still co-operate with him.
 
Nessie said:
From the reports I have read, only that one comment is mentioned.
Click to expand...
That comment was public knowledge so the press can run with that, I saw him in the programme - if that was all he said that was actionable I would be very suprised.
 
Rolfe said:
I see a couple of girls taking pleasure in wielding the power and authority they have been given, against a bewildered woman who is absolutely no threat to them.

"The public", as a body, never asked for "hurty words" to be criminalised. A subsection of the public, a vindictive and nasty subsection, is using ill-conceived legislation to harass people they don't like, using the willing and compliant police as their personal goon squad.
Click to expand...

The public 100% asked for hurty words to be criminalised. My first experience of online, was a raft of complaints about children bullying and abusing each other on Bebo. The parents absolutely wanted criminal actions against the bullies and abusers. Before that, people wanted criminal action against the use of the phone to abuse and bully.

Many of those complaints went nowhere, because the complainer was as bad as the person they were complaining about. I was always amazed at the number of people who thought that if they complained first, nothing would be done about their actions. I now see that many cops wrongly do act that way and they take sides and go with the first to complain, like the two female cops, who were wrong.
 
smartcooky said:
Not that precise example, but I have seen servicemen given the archer for less!


I disagree.
Click to expand...

I have seen examples of terrible misogyny in the armed forces, that makes me doubt one comment like that would result in dismissal.
 
smartcooky said:
... and it only takes a very, very, very, very small number of committed vindictive people to impact lot of people.

One person, Lynsay Watson, has submitted criminal complaints to the police against three people
• Stuart Campbell
• Graham Linehan
• Helen Joyce.

He has also instigated public law challenges and court actions directly against at least four public and policing institutions:
• The Police Appeals Tribunal
• The British Transport Police Federation
• Greater Manchester Police
• Leicestershire Police

Its not just the individuals he has filed against who are impacted - its family, friends and colleagues who are affected as well. This single thoroughly nasty, vindictive individual has caused a lot of people harm through the use of poorly written, ill-conceived and unjust laws.

Of course, the outcomes of all this spurious litigation is that the courts have handed him his arse every time...

• Against Greater Manchester Police (Stuart Campbell Case): Defeated.
• Against Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Helen Joyce Case): Defeated.
• Against Metropolitan Police (Graham Linehan Case): Defeated, and the Police apologised unreservedly to Linehan
• Against Leicestershire Police: Claims Struck Out.
• Against the Police Appeals Tribunal: Unsuccessful.

But I'm pretty sure he would have had a fair idea he would not win, but that would not matter to him - . His aim is, and has always been, maximum disruption to the lives of the people he hates. The process IS the punishment!

Now while the above does wander a bit off the topic of Police behaviour, I say its relevant, because when you have bad laws, and a woke law enforcement establishment, you enable nasty people like Watson to take advantage of both for nefarious purposes, and that makes it more likely that cops indoctrinated in the system will behave the way they have been.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said and the police need to be better at identifying and stopping vindictive complainers.
 
Rolfe said:
It's not that far from the topic. Lynsay Watson has the distinction of having been dismissed by the police for gross misconduct - twice. He himself is an ex-cop. His behaviour is driven by this, knowing the system and knowing how to play it. He also has some sort of law qualification. He represents himself as a litigant in person, so he has no expenses except his time. Since he doesn't work (possibly he is above retirement age now, but he gets benefits of some sort) and this is his hobby, it's all gravy to him.

The strange part of it all is that despite the circumstances of his dismissal he seems to be able to get multiple police forces to jump to it and do his bidding, while complaints against him are ignored or fobbed off. Not every police officer is wise to his behaviour, and Stuart's description of the young policewoman's face as he launched into a detailed description of Watson's record is quite something. But most forces know who he is and what he's up to, and still co-operate with him.
Click to expand...

His actions should be used to train cops in how to deal with vexatious complainers.
 
Right at the moment, the training would be about how to go after the person he has complained about in such a way as to cause maximum inconvenience and stress to that person. Because that's what they're actually doing.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
The public 100% asked for hurty words to be criminalised. My first experience of online, was a raft of complaints about children bullying and abusing each other on Bebo. The parents absolutely wanted criminal actions against the bullies and abusers. Before that, people wanted criminal action against the use of the phone to abuse and bully.

Many of those complaints went nowhere, because the complainer was as bad as the person they were complaining about. I was always amazed at the number of people who thought that if they complained first, nothing would be done about their actions. I now see that many cops wrongly do act that way and they take sides and go with the first to complain, like the two female cops, who were wrong.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You mistake a minority of vindictive troublemakers for "the public".
 
Rolfe said:
Nonsense. You mistake a minority of vindictive troublemakers for "the public".
Click to expand...
"Police in England and Wales recorded 91,987 malicious communications offences in 2025/26, down from 288,939 at the 2021/22 peak, a fall the statisticians attribute mainly to a change in counting rules rather than fewer reports. Three in every hundred closed investigations ended in a charge. The courts convicted 2,487 people under the four communications offences in 2025."

britishresilienceindex.com

Communications offences: the reports, the charges, and the arrests nobody publishes

Police in England and Wales recorded 91,987 malicious communications offences in 2025/26, down from 288,939 at the 2021/22 peak, a fall the statisticians attribute mainly to a change in counting
britishresilienceindex.com britishresilienceindex.com

The public are reporting a lot of pish to the police, hence only 3% of reports result in a person charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom