• 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.

bluesjnr said:
I would suggest that you got lucky. I can guarantee you that during that whole interaction the officers concerned were looking to apportion blame to your daughter. Well done you and her for avoiding the trap.

I've had way to many interactions with the police (calm down, nothing to do with anything criminal) and have not one where I could relate such a positive outcome.

So, we're into anecdotes to prove our diametrically opposing point. Who wins?

Anybody reading my posts in this thread should do so knowing that I never, ever started off hating them as I do and seeking to avoid any interaction with them. I've got a police commendation award for actions I and my then wife took during a RTA and they even managed to take a ◊◊◊◊ on that.

Like I said and I insist. There's nothing they wont do.

I'm disappointed that you feel my experiences and observations, borne out in videos I've posted, are foolish, absurd, preposterous, or so silly that they deserve to be laughed at. I sincerely hope I never prove you wrong
Click to expand...

I bet you go looking for ways to wind the police up, so you can get upset about the attention you are getting. I came across many people like you.
 
Nessie said:
I bet you go looking for ways to wind the police up, so you can get upset about the attention you are getting. I came across many people like you.
Click to expand...
As I have said there is nothing that a police officer wont do to make a situation worse and that they like to escalate situations as well as goad members of the public. The same, as we can see here, can be said of ex-police officers. Shame on you.

Details of how I interact with the police are clearly stated throughout this thread, they've even been explained to you directly yet you choose to make things up.

You lose your bet because, apart from my regular 5 yearly visit for my firearms registration, I never ever interact with the police. I've told you before, even if I got broken into I wouldn't contact them due to past experience. Even if I was violently assaulted I wouldn't contact them due to past experience. Even if I was able and ready to assist them with an apprehension I wouldn't, due to past experiences. I brought my son up with the advice to avoid contact. He has a cop as a neighbour and it took the twat 20 sec's upon meeting him to brag that he was armed response, he's a dangerous child and I advised my son to stay the ◊◊◊◊ away from him.

I've made the mistake of treating you as an equal over the years but you can't keep the ex-cop down. It's like a demonic possession.
 
bluesjnr said:
As I have said there is nothing that a police officer wont do to make a situation worse and that they like to escalate situations as well as goad members of the public. The same, as we can see here, can be said of ex-police officers. Shame on you.

Details of how I interact with the police are clearly stated throughout this thread, they've even been explained to you directly yet you choose to make things up.

You lose your bet because, apart from my regular 5 yearly visit for my firearms registration, I never ever interact with the police. I've told you before, even if I got broken into I wouldn't contact them due to past experience. Even if I was violently assaulted I wouldn't contact them due to past experience. Even if I was able and ready to assist them with an apprehension I wouldn't, due to past experiences. I brought my son up with the advice to avoid contact. He has a cop as a neighbour and it took the twat 20 sec's upon meeting him to brag that he was armed response, he's a dangerous child and I advised my son to stay the ◊◊◊◊ away from him.

I've made the mistake of treating you as an equal over the years but you can't keep the ex-cop down. It's like a demonic possession.
Click to expand...
Once a cop...
 
bluesjnr said:
As I have said there is nothing that a police officer wont do to make a situation worse and that they like to escalate situations as well as goad members of the public. The same, as we can see here, can be said of ex-police officers. Shame on you.

Details of how I interact with the police are clearly stated throughout this thread, they've even been explained to you directly yet you choose to make things up.

You lose your bet because, apart from my regular 5 yearly visit for my firearms registration, I never ever interact with the police. I've told you before, even if I got broken into I wouldn't contact them due to past experience. Even if I was violently assaulted I wouldn't contact them due to past experience. Even if I was able and ready to assist them with an apprehension I wouldn't, due to past experiences. I brought my son up with the advice to avoid contact. He has a cop as a neighbour and it took the twat 20 sec's upon meeting him to brag that he was armed response, he's a dangerous child and I advised my son to stay the ◊◊◊◊ away from him.

I've made the mistake of treating you as an equal over the years but you can't keep the ex-cop down. It's like a demonic possession.
Click to expand...

Your response proves my point. You are a police hater. I met many like you during my service. Some had valid reasons for the hate and mistrust, others were caught up by the incitement of others, which is now prolific due to social media.
 
Nessie said:
Your response proves my point. You are a police hater. I met many like you during my service. Some had valid reasons for the hate and mistrust, others were caught up by the incitement of others, which is now prolific due to social media.
Click to expand...
You didn't make a point, you uttered an accusation. A completely wrong accusation. As you reap, so shall so sow.

If you did think you were making a point what point was it? That I'm a police hater? It's a matter of record and didn't need pointing out!
 
Darat said:
Yep "communications offences" - domestic violence victims should have to just accept that their attacker can send them text after text after text, or that a stalker can send messages after message to their victim, that someone can send hardcore porn over and over again to someone, I mean such behaviour is simply "free speech" and sorry there is nothing a society should do about it....
Click to expand...
But that is not what anyone else here is talking about her, and you bloody well know it!

Attackers sending texts after text to their victims is harassment. It needs to treated the same way as if the attacker is standing outside the victim's house screaming at them.. No need to invoke the communications act for that.

Sending hardcore porn over and over again to someone is the same as dropping it on their doorstep. Again, there is no need to invoke the communications act for that.

These malicious communications laws may have been set up with the best of intentions, but they are now being deliberately misused to silence legitimate free speech. When laws like these were proposed, opposition was often countered with variations of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", or "if you do nothing wrong it wont affect you" The problem with that is the definition of "wrong" changes, and it does so at the will of those in power. Things that would never have even been looked at, are now arrestable, and lead to charges.
 
Nessie said:
Your response proves my point. You are a police hater. I met many like you during my service. Some had valid reasons for the hate and mistrust, others were caught up by the incitement of others, which is now prolific due to social media.
Click to expand...

I know you are all in for the Police - its clear you are "in the tank" for them, but on this very forum, you have defended, or at the very least, made allowances for, a serving officer who told a female colleague the he hoped she would be raped on the way home.

No matter how you try to spin it, defence of that behaviour puts you on the wrong side of most people here, myself included.
 
smartcooky said:
But that is not what anyone else here is talking about her, and you bloody well know it!

Attackers sending texts after text to their victims is harassment. It needs to treated the same way as if the attacker is standing outside the victim's house screaming at them.. No need to invoke the communications act for that.

Sending hardcore porn over and over again to someone is the same as dropping it on their doorstep. Again, there is no need to invoke the communications act for that.

These malicious communications laws may have been set up with the best of intentions, but they are now being deliberately misused to silence legitimate free speech. When laws like these were proposed, opposition was often countered with variations of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", or "if you do nothing wrong it wont affect you" The problem with that is the definition of "wrong" changes, and it does so at the will of those in power. Things that would never have even been looked at, are now arrestable, and lead to charges.
Click to expand...
Again my post was about the falsehoods in the video.
 
Did the video explicitly claim that every single case where someone was charged with malicious communication was spurious?
 
Make of this what you will. Section 5 is often abused by officers tasked with policing us, many of them don't actually know the law, as it stands. The majority bend, stretch and abuse it to suit themselves and put those they interact with on the wrong side of the law. Thoughts?

BTW - I know nothing about the race or politics of the individual posting this. It doesn't matter

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7687940733935865110
 
Last edited:
bluesjnr said:
Make of this what you will. Section 5 is often abused by officers tasked with policing us, many of them don't actually know the law, as it stands. The majority bend, stretch and abuse it to suit themselves and put those they interact with on the wrong side of the law. Thoughts?

BTW - I know nothing about the race or politics of the individual posting this. It doesn't matter

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7687940733935865110
Click to expand...
If he was standing there preaching from the Qur'an, the police wouldn't even be approaching him.
 
smartcooky said:
But that is not what anyone else here is talking about her, and you bloody well know it!

Attackers sending texts after text to their victims is harassment. It needs to treated the same way as if the attacker is standing outside the victim's house screaming at them.. No need to invoke the communications act for that.

Sending hardcore porn over and over again to someone is the same as dropping it on their doorstep. Again, there is no need to invoke the communications act for that.

These malicious communications laws may have been set up with the best of intentions, but they are now being deliberately misused to silence legitimate free speech. When laws like these were proposed, opposition was often countered with variations of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", or "if you do nothing wrong it wont affect you" The problem with that is the definition of "wrong" changes, and it does so at the will of those in power. Things that would never have even been looked at, are now arrestable, and lead to charges.
Click to expand...

Do you want harassment by text or sending porn dealt with under a different type of law and not communications acts? If so, what law?
 
smartcooky said:
I know you are all in for the Police - its clear you are "in the tank" for them, but on this very forum, you have defended, or at the very least, made allowances for, a serving officer who told a female colleague the he hoped she would be raped on the way home.

No matter how you try to spin it, defence of that behaviour puts you on the wrong side of most people here, myself included.
Click to expand...

Except I did not defend that police officer. Instead, I said his punishment should be a fine or demotion, rather than the sack and I explained that in the context of how the law treats everyone who is a first offender who admits to what they did. You spun that into me defending him as if what he said was OK and should be tolerated.
 
Darat said:
Another single, bad apple found:

www.bbc.co.uk

Palantir AI probe leads to Met Police volunteer chief's dismissal

Special chief officer James Deller copied intimate images on to his work phone, AI monitoring finds.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I was just going to post that.

"The misconduct was discovered during a week-long operation called Project Galatasaray, which used the AI technology in a bid to identify corruption and professional misconduct within the Met."

It would fit in the AI thread too.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
Except I did not defend that police officer. Instead, I said his punishment should be a fine or demotion, rather than the sack and I explained that in the context of how the law treats everyone who is a first offender who admits to what they did. You spun that into me defending him as if what he said was OK and should be tolerated.
Click to expand...
Yes but I would argue was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

For two reasons.

1). It's s a workplace and this would be severe harassment of a colleague. If he remained a colleague of the woman on whom he was wishing sexual violence, then she would be reasonable in feeling threatened with the management failing to take her seriously.

If she subsequently left the force, she would have a case for constructive dismissal. This is for any workplace and any employer. And would be sufficient on its own.

2). But this is not any workplace. Police officers are placed in a position of trust. At the least, it would be difficult to trust any interactions between him and any women or girls.

It also shows a massive lack of self control. If this is what he does in front of a credible witness, what does he do when not so observed?


It is also a workplace with a problem with misogyny (see upthread) and that will not be addressed with simple demotion for those who are so plainly unsuited to hold a warrant.
 
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