Mum arrested for tweets

[Downforce]

One of my mates had a pair of jeans seized from him as evidence 

He was so excited to get them back about nine months later only to find where they had seen marks on them they’d cut about 20-30 match head sized holes to remove the material for analysis 

Despite trying never got any compo for the jeans 

[Rem260]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm not sure it does; the 'evidence' has been posted by her (it was apparently anonymous, but so in loosely are we here, though the site admin knows from when we registered) on an internet site.  I imagine the police would have checked it before attending her house.  It is therefore already there online.

A drug dealer will have high risk of not turning up - but a housewife and mother - married to a clergyman?  Highly unlikely to 'do a runner' - and I suggest a low risk of not turning up.

IF the police had loads of staff with time on their hands - nothing wrong in sending two round, but with them continually claiming to be understaffed and unable to attend many crimes - and with an abysmally poor 'solve rate' for burglary - they claim because they don't have the time to investigate fully - they need to better prioritise their deployments (in my view).

A housewife posting what she seems to be accused of posting would seem to me to be very low priority.

As I said I  agree that there are more important things the police should be doing. However someone decided that this alleged crime should be investigated and the police officers attending were faced with an uncooperative housewife who was unsuccessfully trying to frustrate the investigation by asking if they had a warrant and trying to close the door. Read her own tweets to see how cooperative she was. She set the tone and it would be obvious to anyone that she would try and pick holes in the police response. So they played it by the book.

Had they not I can imagine the Solicitors question.

"Officer if you thought my client had been sending malicious communications.  Why have you not looked at her laptop.

Is it because you don't believe she has."

 

[udderlyoffroad]

22 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

A housewife posting what she seems to be accused of posting would seem to me to be very low priority.

Indeed.

I find hard to wrap my head around the fact that people on here think words said on the internet should be a police matter at all.  I've still not seen anyone even attempting justifying that. 

But then, at the height of the Corona silliness, people on here were applauding police for getting involved in 'Scotch Egg Gate' (i.e. does a scotch egg constitute a substantial meal).

Meanwhile, people are being knifed on the streets of major cities in broad daylight.

6 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

However someone decided that this alleged crime should be investigated

Whoever decided that needs 'training' urgently.

 

6 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

the police officers attending were faced with an uncooperative housewife who was unsuccessfully trying to frustrate the investigation by asking if they had a warrant and trying to close the door. Read her own tweets to see how cooperative she was. She set the tone and it would be obvious to anyone that she would try and pick holes in the police response. So they played it by the book.

That is all your opinion and very much still to be determined, possibly in both a civil and criminal court.

And you and I have very different opinions on what constitutes 'frustrating an investigation' if asking if they have a warrant falls into that category!

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by udderlyoffroad

[ditchman]

i wonder if they are discussing this topic on "mums net"

[Gordon R]

Quote

 police officers attending were faced with an uncooperative housewife who was unsuccessfully trying to frustrate the investigation by asking if they had a warrant and trying to close the door.

If the Police turned up two handed and tried to make their way into someone's house, "Have you got a warrant" seems a reasonable question. It doesn't make her un-cooperative or trying to frustrate them.

A rather bizarre view.

[Rem260]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

If the Police turned up two handed and tried to make their way into someone's house, "Have you got a warrant" seems a reasonable question. It doesn't make her un-cooperative or trying to frustrate them.

A rather bizarre view.

This is the trouble with trial by media. She is only providing her version of events. I very much doubt the police officers turned up and immediately tried to force entry to her house with no preceeding dialogue. She also admitted she knew she was being arrested.

So what is the purpose of asking "Do you have a warrant" and immediately trying to close the door? 

I would certainly consider that as frustrating the arrest after being told the reason why they were there.

 

As for turning up two handed she was being arrested  and having been arrested  someone would have to sit in the rear of the car with her. 

 

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

And you and I have very different opinions on what constitutes 'frustrating an investigation' if asking if they have a warrant falls into that category!

OK. The local firearms officer arrives at your house and asks to come in and talk to you. You ask him what about? He replys . X person has made an allegation against you regarding a malicious communication. Are the very next words out of your mouth.

"You got a warrant"

I also refer you to my above answer.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Rem260

[udderlyoffroad]

14 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

I very much doubt the police officers turned up and immediately tried to force entry to her house with no preceeding dialogue. 

Speculation, as you suggest, but I very much don't doubt it.  It would appear to be entirely consistent with modern policing, that is: arrest first, ask questions later. 

 

16 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

OK. The local firearms officer arrives at your house and asks to come in and talk to you. You ask him what about? He replys . X person has made an allegation against you regarding a malicious communication. Are the very next words out of your mouth.

"You got a warrant"

What's your point?

If the FLO/FEO is at your door, generally you have to let them in, if you wish to hang on to your ticket.  Stinks but that's the way it is.

It's unlikely to actually be an FLO/FEO, however, as most (but not all) are not serving police officers, rather 'civilian'* staff.  They would not usually concern themselves with investigation of an alleged offence, rather only act on reading their colleagues' reports as to whether you should be in possession of an FAC/SGC or not.

If they think you're really dangerous they'll send firearms reponse team (ARV) reception committee...

Either way, you've made it clear you'll just let in a police officer into your house come what may.  OK, that's a way to go, but not everyone who bangs on your door really is who they say they are....

*A terrible term, the police are civilians.

 

[Rem260]

13 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Speculation, as you suggest, but I very much don't doubt it.  It would appear to be entirely consistent with modern policing, that is: arrest first, ask questions later. 

 

What's your point?

If the FLO/FEO is at your door, generally you have to let them in, if you wish to hang on to your ticket.  Stinks but that's the way it is.

It's unlikely to actually be an FLO/FEO, however, as most (but not all) are not serving police officers, rather 'civilian'* staff.  They would not usually concern themselves with investigation of an alleged offence, rather only act on reading their colleagues' reports as to whether you should be in possession of an FAC/SGC or not.

If they think you're really dangerous they'll send firearms reponse team (ARV) reception committee...

Either way, you've made it clear you'll just let in a police officer into your house come what may.  OK, that's a way to go, but not everyone who bangs on your door really is who they say they are....

*A terrible term, the police are civilians.

 

I think you will find that all firearms officers are police officers. They don't employ civilians to carry firearms. Unless you know different ?

[Sussexboy]

13 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

I think you will find that all firearms officers are police officers. They don't employ civilians to carry firearms. Unless you know different ?

To be pedantic they do. As all police officers are civilians in the strict sense of the word, then it follows that all firearms officers are civilians. I think that what udderlyoffroad was referring to was that your firearms enquiry officer is likely to be a civilian civilian as opposed to a police civilian. I think that makes sense…

[Rem260]

29 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

Either way, you've made it clear you'll just let in a police officer into your house come what may.  OK, that's a way to go, but not everyone who bangs on your door really is who they say they are....

*A terrible term, the police are civilians.

 

Yes I would let a fully uniformed firearms officer into my house who had explained why they were there. Its you who has said they would let a civilian in come what may just because they said they were the local FEO/FLO.

[Rem260]

12 minutes ago, Sussexboy said:

To be pedantic they do. As all police officers are civilians in the strict sense of the word, then it follows that all firearms officers are civilians. I think that what udderlyoffroad was referring to was that your firearms enquiry officer is likely to be a civilian civilian as opposed to a police civilian. I think that 

I never mentioned firearms enquiry officers udderlyoffroad did. I said local firearms officer. So I wasn't confusing anything. But if you want to be pedantic then that is your perogative.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Rem260

[Sussexboy]

Thank you , I will as the whim occurs to me 😁

[Gordon R]

Rem260, until a blow by blow account emerges you cannot assert that she was being uncooperative. It all depends on what was said and when. If the Police turned up and explained why they were there / she was being arrested and she tried to stop them entering her house, then you would have a point. 

If they turned up and tried to enter her home without all that, then a member of the public might well ask if they had a warrant. 

Unless you have the full script, what makes you so sure the fault is on her side?

There are two versions of events:-

1. The Police arrested her. 

2. They requested that she attend for an interview.

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Gordon R

[Rem260]

35 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Rem260, until a blow by blow account emerges you cannot assert that she was being uncooperative. It all depends on what was said and when. If the Police turned up and explained why they were there / she was being arrested and she tried to stop them entering her house, then you would have a point. 

If they turned up and tried to enter her home without all that, then a member of the public might well ask if they had a warrant. 

Unless you have the full script, what makes you so sure the fault is on her side?

There are two versions of events:-

1. The Police arrested her. 

2. They requested that she attend for an interview.

 

Gordon as I said trial by social media.

Her first comment on the twitter feed.

A thread about my evening.

Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you.

which she then changed to

Well actually, they came to the door and said there’s been an allegation can we come in. I said “do you have a warrant”, they said we don’t need one and this 6 foot 3 bloke forced his way in.

My summation to the reason for this was that the first quote did not suit the agenda of heavy handed police acting beyond the law. But I could be wrong.

She is quick to post stills from her husbands recording of the incident but not the video. She is more than capable of doing so as she is a journalist. What could be better than a video showing the encounter of police unlawfully entering her property and not giving her a reason for doing so.

If they turned up and tried to enter her home without all that, then a member of the public might well ask if they had a warrant.

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

Rem260, until a blow by blow account emerges you cannot assert that she was being uncooperative. It all depends on what was said and when. If the Police turned up and explained why they were there / she was being arrested and she tried to stop them entering her house, then you would have a point. 

If they turned up and tried to enter her home without all that, then a member of the public might well ask if they had a warrant.

 

But that was not the only action she also tried to close the door on them.

In essence I am trying to give a possible perspective from the police side. Some people automatically jump on the police as they generally have anti establishment views and no comprehension of what is like to be a police officer or the problems they encounter when trying to do the job.

If people think she is giving a balanced view of the encounter then i really do despair. However I will admit to being wrong when she is paid out for unlawful entry and arrest.  But if proven right I doubt those that had believed her version of the encounter will.

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

In essence I am trying to give a possible perspective from the police side. Some people automatically jump on the police as they generally have anti establishment views and no comprehension of what is like to be a police officer or the problems they encounter when trying to do the job.

16 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

But I could be wrong.

18 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

If people think she is giving a balanced view of the encounter then i really do despair. However I will admit to being wrong when she is paid out for unlawful entry and arrest.  But if proven right I doubt those that had believed her version of the encounter will.

That makes no sense .
 

[12gauge82]

15 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Gordon as I said trial by social media.

Her first comment on the twitter feed.

A thread about my evening.

Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you.

which she then changed to

Well actually, they came to the door and said there’s been an allegation can we come in. I said “do you have a warrant”, they said we don’t need one and this 6 foot 3 bloke forced his way in.

My summation to the reason for this was that the first quote did not suit the agenda of heavy handed police acting beyond the law. But I could be wrong.

She is quick to post stills from her husbands recording of the incident but not the video. She is more than capable of doing so as she is a journalist. What could be better than a video showing the encounter of police unlawfully entering her property and not giving her a reason for doing so.

If they turned up and tried to enter her home without all that, then a member of the public might well ask if they had a warrant.

But that was not the only action she also tried to close the door on them.

In essence I am trying to give a possible perspective from the police side. Some people automatically jump on the police as they generally have anti establishment views and no comprehension of what is like to be a police officer or the problems they encounter when trying to do the job.

If people think she is giving a balanced view of the encounter then i really do despair. However I will admit to being wrong when she is paid out for unlawful entry and arrest.  But if proven right I doubt those that had believed her version of the encounter will.

Why do you think so many people have sceptical/anti police views?

I would suggest it's due to the way policing has gone, they get involved in political issues, are very left leaning and soft on crime (not really their fault due to cps decisions, lack of officers and employing the wrong people). But it needs route and branch change, as I think they have lost public confidence. 

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, Rem260 said:

Police. "Your laptop seems to have been wiped"

That's not possible.

She could nuke/drill/destroy some other way her HDD (even then that may not work completely). But not sure how that would help her. Not unless she has access to do the same to all the Twitter servers and backup servers HDDs. She may need more than 1 microwave to nuke the lot though.

[Rem260]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

3 hours ago, Rem260 said:

In essence I am trying to give a possible perspective from the police side. Some people automatically jump on the police as they generally have anti establishment views and no comprehension of what is like to be a police officer or the problems they encounter when trying to do the job.

Expand  

What is so funny about that.

 

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

3 hours ago, Rem260 said:

If people think she is giving a balanced view of the encounter then i really do despair. However I will admit to being wrong when she is paid out for unlawful entry and arrest.  But if proven right I doubt those that had believed her version of the encounter will.

That makes no sense

I am sure you can figure it out.

[Gordon R]

Quote

But I could be wrong.

You say this, but take umbrage when anyone disagrees. 

You point out that her version of events has changed. The Police version has also changed.

If you take the time and trouble to check my history with the Police you will find that I invariably support them. I have had many, many dealings with Police Forces throughout the UK and have a number of friends in the Police. Unless you are a serving officer, I suspect I have had far more dealings with them than you.

That doesn't mean I have to blindly support them. In this instance, their approach seems heavy handed - especially now that the original complaint has been withdrawn. Based on the limited facts available - I note that you don't appear to have the full script - I don't think it shows them in the best light. If you do have the full script to support your rather one sided views, I am all ears.

[Mungler]

8 hours ago, Rem260 said:

As I said I  agree that there are more important things the police should be doing. However someone decided that this alleged crime should be investigated and the police officers attending were faced with an uncooperative housewife who was unsuccessfully trying to frustrate the investigation by asking if they had a warrant and trying to close the door. Read her own tweets to see how cooperative she was. She set the tone and it would be obvious to anyone that she would try and pick holes in the police response. So they played it by the book.

Had they not I can imagine the Solicitors question.

"Officer if you thought my client had been sending malicious communications.  Why have you not looked at her laptop.

Is it because you don't believe she has."

 

You seriously think she’s under any obligation to cooperate with any investigation, especially if she considers herself innocent and harassed (which is the way it’s going).

You are delusional.

Your support of the police arresting a housewife on an allegation of hurty words (allegation now since dropped) by a serial nuisance is interesting as too your ignoring the waste of resources - and today 3 people were stabbed in broad daylight  200 yards from a police station in london whilst trying to stop a phone robbery.

I guess the police were busy out harassing housewives eh?

Edited October 6, 2022 by Mungler

[Gordon R]

Quote

You are delusional.

Made me smile.

[12gauge82]

9 hours ago, Gordon R said:

You say this, but take umbrage when anyone disagrees. 

You point out that her version of events has changed. The Police version has also changed.

If you take the time and trouble to check my history with the Police you will find that I invariably support them. I have had many, many dealings with Police Forces throughout the UK and have a number of friends in the Police. Unless you are a serving officer, I suspect I have had far more dealings with them than you.

That doesn't mean I have to blindly support them. In this instance, their approach seems heavy handed - especially now that the original complaint has been withdrawn. Based on the limited facts available - I note that you don't appear to have the full script - I don't think it shows them in the best light. If you do have the full script to support your rather one sided views, I am all ears.

Good post Gordon. 

Like you I support the police and have done many times on here, but it appears they absolutely have gone too far here. If reports are to be believed, they've gone beyond upholding the law and used police powers to enforce woke ideology, which if correct, I think is very disturbing. 

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Good post Gordon. 

Like you I support the police and have done many times on here, but it appears they absolutely have gone too far here. If reports are to be believed, they've gone beyond upholding the law and used police powers to enforce woke ideology, which if correct, I think is very disturbing. 

They have effectively arrested someone for stating a fact!

Some may disagree with the fact, but that is their problem, and doesn't change that fact.

[Rem260]

14 hours ago, Gordon R said:

You say this, but take umbrage when anyone disagrees. 

You point out that her version of events has changed. The Police version has also changed.

If you take the time and trouble to check my history with the Police you will find that I invariably support them. I have had many, many dealings with Police Forces throughout the UK and have a number of friends in the Police. Unless you are a serving officer, I suspect I have had far more dealings with them than you.

That doesn't mean I have to blindly support them. In this instance, their approach seems heavy handed - especially now that the original complaint has been withdrawn. Based on the limited facts available - I note that you don't appear to have the full script - I don't think it shows them in the best light. If you do have the full script to support your rather one sided views, I am all ears.

No one is asking for blind support of the police. However the police are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. It is society that decides on police priorities. They set up various groups to monitor police action/inaction SARI ect. These organisations are not populated by people with right of center views. Unfortunately hate crime wokery is the hot agenda. Do you think the police officer attending had a choice in whether he investigated the incident. Society dictates that they can't. What do you think police and crime commissioners are for. Whether you like it or not the police have to listen to these agencies. Just look at taking the knee and BLM. The same pressures are placed on the police with LGBTQ issues. 

I have missed where the police version of events has changed. Could you please provide a link to it.

A complaint being withdrawn does not give merit to there having been no offence to investigate.

Take domestics, before there became prosecution's without the victims cooperation. Alleged victims would phone the police in order to get their partner removed from the property and when officers returned for statements they would say they no longer wished to support a prosecution. This in some instances would be a regular occurrence for some families. So are we saying these incidents should not be investigated as the victim has a history of withdrawing the complaint.

My comments are based on what she has herself has published and to try to give a perspective from the police side. As so many have jumped on the police. 

14 hours ago, Gordon R said:

You say this, but take umbrage when anyone disagrees. 

You point out that her version of events has changed. The Police version has also changed.

If you take the time and trouble to check my history with the Police you will find that I invariably support them. I have had many, many dealings with Police Forces throughout the UK and have a number of friends in the Police. Unless you are a serving officer, I suspect I have had far more dealings with them than you.

That doesn't mean I have to blindly support them. In this instance, their approach seems heavy handed - especially now that the original complaint has been withdrawn. Based on the limited facts available - I note that you don't appear to have the full script - I don't think it shows them in the best light. If you do have the full script to support your rather one sided views, I am all ears.

This sentence just goes to show with little facts you have jumped to the conclusion that you have had more dealings with the Police. Could I ask what your many dealings with Police Forces across the country were

[Gordon R]

Quote

This sentence just goes to show with little facts you have jumped to the conclusion that you have had more dealings with the Police. Could I ask what your many dealings with Police Forces across the country were

Try reading what is written. I said I suspect, whereas you read that I jumped to a conclusion. 

In respect of the different Police versions - Google it for yourself, it is easy enough.

You may ask what my dealings were. It's none of your business.