Police state or the state of policing

[Ingram85]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Ha ha ha.

If this is your genuine reaction to having some of the details of your anecdotes questioned then it doesn't lend much support to their veracity.

It was supposed to sound more tongue in cheek tbh. Should have put a winking face. But nice to know you’re as friendly as usual 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Ingram85 said:

It was supposed to sound more tongue in cheek tbh. Should have put a winking face. But nice to know you’re as friendly as usual 

Fine.

The issue you raised in your comments appeared to be a general one about domestic abuse accusations as a whole not being treated properly which is a different issue to the one raised in the article - unless, that is, both your partner's ex and the person involved in the other case were Police officers/staff (if they were that wasn't clear).

The piece you quoted was about how Police officers and staff accused of certain offences were seeming to get a better deal (by the conviction rate being lower) than the population as a whole. It was about Police treating allegations against colleagues less seriously than accusations against others and being more defensive when an allegation is made about a fellow Police bod.

[Ingram85]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Fine.

The issue you raised in your comments appeared to be a general one about domestic abuse accusations as a whole not being treated properly which is a different issue to the one raised in the article - unless, that is, both your partner's ex and the person involved in the other case were Police officers/staff (if they were that wasn't clear).

The piece you quoted was about how Police officers and staff accused of certain offences were seeming to get a better deal (by the conviction rate being lower) than the population as a whole. It was about Police treating allegations against colleagues less seriously than accusations against others and being more defensive when an allegation is made about a fellow Police bod.

I think if you’re looking at it more broadly instead of using the VT ultra specific quantum realm reaching microscope you’ll see that the culture around domestic abuse amongst a section of Police staff is that they don’t really give a shit until it’s too late and ‘lessons have to be learnt’. The article itself links in to that thinking. The police don’t seem to be willing to deal with anything surrounding domestic abuse unless it’s absolutely clear cut and easy to prove. Some staff/officers think they are untouchable and can get away with domestic abuse themselves, yes they are two separate factors but they link into the same subject and one affects the other surely?

People suffering domestic abuse want help from people unwilling to help them and whose colleagues commit domestic abuse leading to a cover up culture.  

All my own opinion of course. 

Also I hasten to add, I’m not interested in a drawn out point scoring boring academic breakdown Awol/Peterms/Snowy style passive/aggressive argument/discussion. These are my experiences and opinions, right or wrong, I don’t have a thesis in discussion. I’m a layman. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Ingram85

[snowychap]

42 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

I think if you’re looking at it more broadly instead of using the VT ultra specific quantum realm reaching microscope you’ll see that the culture around domestic abuse amongst a section of Police staff is that they don’t really give a shit until it’s too late and ‘lessons have to be learnt’. The article itself links in to that thinking. The police don’t seem to be willing to deal with anything surrounding domestic abuse unless it’s absolutely clear cut and easy to prove. Some staff/officers think they are untouchable and can get away with domestic abuse themselves, yes they are two separate factors but they link into the same subject and one affects the other surely?

I'll try and ignore the silly 'VT ultra specific quantum' bollocks.

My post referred both to your comments (about the ineffective police response to two complaints of abuse) and to the article which was about worries of police doing less (than they would do elsewise) if the person about whom a complaint was made was a colleague - indeed, in the two minute clip from the Victoria Derbyshire show, 'Suzanne' said that she thought that he [her ex-husband] was protected because of his job.

I think there are a number of issues and that they don't all affect the other surely, no. I think you're making a mistake if you are inferring from a situation where the police, as a whole, may seek to protect their own that they are therefore, as a whole, less willing to deal with similar cases where the accused is not police. It may well be the case that individual officers who carry out this type of thing themselves and who may be and feel protected by their own colleagues are dismissive of such action by non-police but I don't think it likely that the direction of travel would be from this group to the wider police population.

What is much more pertinent to look at is why so few allegations make it from the initial stage to a point where prosecutions are begun (thereafter, the conviction rate is 76% according to the ONS*). Is it ineffectiveness of policing? Is it that these types of cases are still not being taken seriously enough and that there is a general attempt to ppersuade victims not to pursue the case? Is it lack of police resources? Is it the evidential requirements in these cases?

As per your comments initially, there are undoubtedly going to be cases where people feel the police have not taken their complaint and allegation seriously or where they have been dismissive or where they may have said something that is beyond the pale. It's not good and there are and will be many reasons for it, sometimes it will be as simple as the copper involved is either uselss or a troglodyte in a uniform.

The article you linked, however, and certainly the original article/report by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is about when the police are the (alleged) perpetrators. The latter article is available here:

Quote

One late summer evening, Debbie cracked. After weeks of deliberating, she phoned Merseyside Police to report her partner for serious allegations of physical and verbal abuse. It was a decision she would soon regret. The problem, she says, is that he was an officer with the same force.

“He used to say the police would protect him and if I phoned up against him, he’d just get me put in prison,” she said. “One day it was too much and I did phone. In hindsight that was the biggest mistake of my whole life.”

Domestic abuse is often predicated on fear. Fear of what your abuser will do next, fear that you're going mad, fear that no one will believe you. Many of those affected are understandably afraid of how their partner will react if they report them; some do so anyway.

So what happens when your abuser is part of the system that's supposed to protect you?

Debbie is one of multiple women who have told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism they suffered emotional or physical abuse at the hands of police officer partners, and that they believe their partners used their professional positions to seek to intimidate or harass them.

From across the country we heard claims that alleged abusers got their partners repeatedly arrested, stalked them in marked cars, or warned them there was no point going to the police because the force was "a family."

Some were too scared to ever report it. For those that did go to the police, the experience only served to traumatise them further, they say. They feel their partners’ colleagues failed to adequately follow up on serious allegations and that they were discouraged from making statements. Some complained about their treatment but the complaints were not upheld.

...more on link

 

* Excerpt to satisfy guidelines:

Quote

The percentage of convictions secured for domestic abuse-related prosecutions is at its highest level since the year ending March 2010. In the year ending March 2018, 76% of prosecutions resulted in a conviction.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by snowychap

[bickster]

Quote

Facial recognition wrongly identifies public as potential criminals 96% of time, figures reveal
14-year-old black schoolboy among those wrongly fingerprinted after being misidentified

Facial recognition technology has misidentified members of the public as potential criminals in 96 per cent of scans so far in London, new figures reveal.

The Metropolitan Police said the controversial software could help it hunt down wanted offenders and reduce violence, but critics have accused it of wasting public money and violating human rights.

The trials have so far cost more than £222,000 in London and are subject to a legal challenge and a separate probe by the Information Commissioner. 

Eight trials carried in London between 2016 and 2018 resulted in a 96 per cent rate of “false positives” – where software wrongly alerts police that a person passing through the scanning area matches a photo on the database.

Two deployments outside the Westfield in shopping centre in Stratford last year saw a 100 per cent failure rate and monitors said a 14-year-old black schoolboy was fingerprinted after being misidentified.

 

More on Indy Link

[Xann]

Is it everywhere that's gone flytip crazy, or just around here?

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

Is it everywhere that's gone flytip crazy, or just around here?

It's a nationwide thing.

It's been a growing thing in the West Midlands for the last 5 years or so. They don't even bother ditching the stuff in fields or wasteland in some places around here. A couple of years ago I went down an access road behind some houses that wasn't used very much and ran into a pile of stuff that literally looked like someone had taken a skip and dumped it's contents there.

[Xann]

There's a nearby cul de sac that widens at the end to enable turning. 

Most of the time they land it at the side of the road  

The last one wasn't nearly so polite.

Bins at work get locked after someone deposited a monster Flymo.

Bin man leaves it open and there's a kitchen in there.

Out with folk from from considerably leafier boroughs than ours. It's quite a problem in Raab country.

 

[bickster]

Flytipping is a council issue not a police one, just saying

[Xann]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Flytipping is a council issue not a police one, just saying

You don't see it entwined enough with the state of policing for this thread?

Get that point, but it is conspicuous lawlessness.

[Davkaus]

Both due to a lack of policing, and council cuts leading to them charging people to take stuff to the tip, I'd imagine. 

False economy if there ever was one. Make it expensive to legally dispose of rubbish, and guess what people will do? Another every day consequence of austerity. 

Can we talk about the disgraceful state of roads next? 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Davkaus

[Xann]

50 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Can we talk about the disgraceful state of roads next? 

Traditional rigid framed thin wheeled racing bikes are murder.

[chrisp65]

4 hours ago, Xann said:

Is it everywhere that's gone flytip crazy, or just around here?

Vale of Glamorgan has just gone full nazi on it's recycling.

I've always been a good boy and recycled fairly well, sorting recyc plastic from the random shit plastic etc.. But the Vale are really cranking it up. We are only allowed a single black bin bag of waste per week (i don't often have a problem with that). If you go to the recycling 'dump' you now are only allowed access on the following criteria:

You have to be in a 'domestic' car, no vans, no trailers, no company logos, no walking in to the site.

You have to have some form of official photo i.d. such as passport or driving license.

You cannot simply dump unsorted rubbish, you have to separate.

 

But by separate, i mean really really separate. Wooden coat hanger with a metal hook? Break it up. Mdf CD rack with plastic inserts? Break it up. 

An absolute ball ache.

 

Fly tipping locally has increased exponentially so they're hiding cameras in all the hedges.

 

Luckily, we don't have any police around here anymore, so they tend not to bother you.

[bickster]

... and add to that councils up and down the land employing the services of rocket polishers like Kingdom to act as "Civil Enforcement Officers" to hand out fines for littering and by littering I mean dropping a ciggie butt to gain the council's extra income in fines it's all gone a bit topsy turvy priority wise

Liverpool eventually got rid of Kingdom due to the adverse publicity, they were literally following smokers around the city centre waiting for them to drop their ciggies. With no actual real powers, numerous people just kept walking and walking and walking and never giving their real names and addresses. It became a new sport to see how far you could get a Kingdom rocket polisher to follow you constantly asking for your details before passers by got involved and blocked their path

[HanoiVillan]

48 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

by separate, i mean really really separate. Wooden coat hanger with a metal hook? Break it up. Mdf CD rack with plastic inserts? Break it up. 

An absolute ball ache.

What actual environmental problem is all this unpaid labour supposed to alleviate?

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What actual environmental problem is all this unpaid labour supposed to alleviate?

It supposedly means they don't have to employ someone to do it for you but in practice this is horseshit as I imagine most "neighbourhood recycling centres" work the same way as ours, the different bins are taken away by an appropriate recycling company for the material, who pick it up for nowt as it's essentially free raw material apart from the transport costs

[chrisp65]

17 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What actual environmental problem is all this unpaid labour supposed to alleviate?

I guess, they get paid (or charged less) depending on the 'purity' of each skip full of material and the purer or better quality the skip the better. Too much glitter in the paper or card and they don't get the money they rely on to make it viable. It's then a short leap to work out its easier to get the punter to sort rubbish with one guy supervising and vetting, than employ multiple people to sift general rubbish. I mean, I can't argue with the principle, but locally they've really jumped a few stages of educating people or carrying the people with them. It's just gone straight to we will only allow a single black bag of waste per house per week. Coupled with you cannot put birthday cards with glitter on in the paper and card recycling (no, really).

But I think what's really woumd me up, and what links it with the 'police state' part of this thread. Is me needing a car and an official photo i.d. to take my recycling to the depot. Basically, if I sell my car, I can't use the recycling depot. 

Plus, when the guy at the gate insisted I hold my i.d. just so correctly so he could read it and see my photo without having to touch the i.d. himself, I thought 'this is how it starts'. 

I'll need a retina scan and good credit rating soon, just to be allowed in the park. 

[HanoiVillan]

I just get so annoyed by this 'hairshirt' green politics. Has it reduced the tonnage of landfill if I hide my unseparated coat hanger or CD rack in the middle of my bag of food waste? Does all this unpaid labour spent disassembling furniture on other people's behalf mean that the hole they dig for the next landfill will be any smaller? Did anyone think that this sort of policy punishes time-poor single parents or people working multiple jobs to make ends meet, or those doing full-time care work or who have disabilities or learning difficulties themselves? Does it actually help if, narked by these hippie bureaucrats, voters choose to elect a Tory MP, who helps form a government that cancels a tidal power project that would have saved millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released from gas-fired power stations?

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

locally they've really jumped a few stages of educating people or carrying the people with them

No kidding. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[peterms]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I just get so annoyed by this 'hairshirt' green politics. Has it reduced the tonnage of landfill if I hide my unseparated coat hanger or CD rack in the middle of my bag of food waste? Does all this unpaid labour spent disassembling furniture on other people's behalf mean that the hole they dig for the next landfill will be any smaller? Did anyone think that this sort of policy punishes time-poor single parents or people working multiple jobs to make ends meet, or those doing full-time care work or who have disabilities or learning difficulties themselves? Does it actually help if, narked by these hippie bureaucrats, voters choose to elect a Tory MP, who helps form a government that cancels a tidal power project that would have saved millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released from gas-fired power stations?

I wouldn't call it green politics, more like an unimaginative council response to the need to do something to meet recycling targets and therefore focussing on the things within their simple, direct control, like having a recycling system and then policing it to make sure it's as cheap and simple for them as they can make it.  The hidden costs for individuals that you identify, and the wider social implications of discrediting action on the environment in this way and alienating people, aren't going to be big considerations for middle-ranking council staff given the job of setting up a recycling scheme and making it as cheap as possible.  It's beyond their responsibility, or their capacity to solve at their level and with their very limited power and resources.

A green politics approach would try to address a wider range of issues.  Why is so much waste produced in the first place, and what can be done to reduce the problem at source?  Why are household goods produced to be disposable, frequently replaced, hard to maintain and repair, and costlier to repair than to replace?  What could be done at an economy-wide level to change this?  How do we encourage people to recycle and repair by making it easier and financially better for them to do so, rather than imposing apparently petty and intrusive requirements and policing them at an individual level?  Those things are beyond the scope of local authorities, so they default to what is available and achievable, even if it's not the answer to the problem, because at least it meets the narrow requirements of the immediate task, within their available resources.  It's no kind of an answer, and I expect they would agree, while defending their actions.

We do need some kind of lead on this stuff at government level, but that's way beyond the current mob.

[OutByEaster?]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

We do need some kind of lead on this stuff at government level, but that's way beyond the current mob.

It's not just beyond them, it's in opposition to their defining principle. The market leads, not government.