We in Britain expect a lot from our police officers. On a great many occasions these police officers deliver what is expected of them and do their utmost to protect the public from crime and where possible prevent crime from occurring in the first place.
One of the things, but one that is vitally important, that we should expect our police to do is that the police behave professionally, don’t bring their emotional instabilities to work with them and basically don’t act like snowflake gender studies students when they hear stuff they don’t like. We should also expect basic good behaviour from police officers such as treating the public with respect, not using their considerable powers to threaten members of the public and certainly not going into somewhat of a screaming fit over being ‘misgendered’.
Unfortunately the officer in the video below, which I got from a Twitter user called QueenVick, appears to have failed to adhere to such basic good behaviour when she kicked off at a member of the public for mistaking her for a man. To be quite frank such a mistake was understandable as she was dressed in the usual lumpen winter uniform complete with a woolly hat. If you’d seen her in the street dressed in a distinctly gender neutral uniform then you might also have made such a mistake. At first glance she might have looked like a shorter man rather than a woman due to the nature of her attire.
Here’s the video and you tell me whether or not it was possible that this female officer was, due to angle of view and type of uniform, easily mistaken for a man?
I certainly can see how it would be possible viewing this officer from behind for example to mistake this officer for a man. Such a mistake would be quite innocent and possibly understandable. But what isn’t understandable or acceptable is this officer’s behaviour. She ranted and raved at the member of the public and, along with her colleague, threatened to arrest the man for a public order offence. Her behaviour is pretty awful to be quite frank. She was aggressive and really getting in the man’s face and was the sort of snowflakey, performatively offended conduct that we’ve come to see and expect from the likes of the useless Gender Studies graduates vomited out in increasing numbers by our equally useless higher education sector. This officer I’m afraid could probably do with redoing whatever part of her training was covering ‘treating the public with respect’.
If this female officer is unhappy with being seen as the opposite sex whilst on duty then maybe she should consider campaigning for all the things that made female officers uniform distinctive to return? Or maybe she could take her complaint about being misgendered to her superior officers. After all they are the ones who actually made the decision that their female officers should be kitted out in a uniform that makes them look like a more smartly dressed tramp than a police officer and headgear that is more suited to be worn by a burglar, or Benny from Crossroads, rather than a highly visible public servant.
Sorry this is one of those rare occasions that I can’t agree with you. It has been my experience that Police officers rarely if ever do what is expected of them. In my area they have abandoned the streets and the people, we can go as long as a year and never see a Police uniform. If we venture towards our police abandoned town centre we might see a police traffic camera van revenue gathering in a nicer part of town but never in the ordinary areas. The police here will lie to you and make every excuse in the book to avoid turning out to an incident and it seems they are now almost entirely engaged in persecution of motorists and those who won’t pay the TV tax. Soft options that pay well are much more fun than actually having to deal with nasty criminals after all.
I was trying to be fair to those officers who do do what we damn well pay them to do, which is apprehending proper criminals and helping to prevent crime. However I do concur with you that there are a lot of police who are basically revenue raisers for the state or thuggish arses with ‘small man (or in this case, woman) syndrome’ who get off on being aggressive or pickers of low hanging fruit such as ‘speech crimes’.
Roy, would that be “persecution” for speeding, or “persecution” for drink driving or “persecution” for driving with a mobile ‘phone in their hand, or running red lights, or zebra crossings, or “persecution” for driving carelessly or dangerously or parking inconsiderately? just asking.
Q. which government reduced the size of the police force? And which government has consistently failed to make good the problem?
If you allow your speed to exceed the limit by a mile or two an hour the revenue gathering camera van will nick you. If you have your property damaged in an attempted break in, as I did, the police might say as they did to me “its a road traffic incident” and refuse to attend. I seems you could be anti car so nothing I say might please you and I don’t condone dangerous or criminal driving but do object when the law is enforced rigourously only on those that are soft targets and customary law-abiding. Motorists are regarded as cash cows and easy targets by many police who prefer not to have to deal with real criminals. A magistrates clerk once told me motorists were fined so heavily because someone has to finance the system and your sure they will pay up, do you think that’s fair?
No Roy, not “anti-car” at all. I’ve been driving since 1977. I’ve also been nicked three times for speeding, all entirely my own fault, because I wasn’t concentrating and ignored the speed limit signs.
What do you suggest the margin might be? 5, 6, 7, 10 mph? That’s the difference between slightly injuring somebody and maiming them or killing them.
Last year a friend of mine was pushed cheese-grater like through the radiator grille of his stationery breakdown truck when a speeding HGV slammed in to the back of. His parents had no body to view, there was no body. They cremated what was left, and then had a second cremation months later of the bit’s forensics picked out of the engine compartment.
Yes, prosecuting motorists for speeding is entirely fair. If you aren’t concentrating, you probably shouldn’t be driving.
@Julian
If pedestrians stayed on pavement they would not be run over by vehicles, speeding or not
Pedestrians must take responsibility for their own safety and stop blaming motorists
Pcar. How do you cross the road. Levitate ? Do you not think that speeding cars ever leave the road ? Are you completely unaware of what is written in the news daily? I don’t think you put very much thought in to that post did you ?
My friend who was killed was in the road, as a breakdown driver, because he was doing his job. He was killed because the HGV driver was speeding.
Period.
Here you are, I’ve broken the silence:
” COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theory
In December 2022, the British Heart Foundation criticised Bridgen for propounding a conspiracy theory which claims the Foundation covered up evidence of mRNA vaccines increasing inflammation of heart arteries. Bridgen had called for a halt to COVID-19 vaccinations, claiming they damaged hearts. The charity “categorically” denied his allegations.
On 11 January 2023, Bridgen had the Conservative whip suspended after comparing the implementation of COVID-19 vaccines to the Holocaust. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called the comparison “utterly unacceptable”.
As regards what else might be going on apart from Bridgen lining up with RFK jr and his anti vaccine grift train, I reckon there’s a lot more going on with his relationship with his party and the party’s judgement of his conduct, not so much in relation to the vaccine stuff but other stuff. I know it’s cynical of me to think so but if a person who was falling out of favour with their party and who had few political allies to support them wanted to let off a metaphorical political hand grenade under neath their party then doing what Bridgen has done with regards the vaccine stuff would be the way to go. If you wanted to kick a party in trouble, which the tories are, then starting a row like this as you are almost being shown the door would be quite effective. T his is what I mean when I say that there may be more going on here with regards Bridgen.
Ah. I await further contributions with interest
There’s a whole load of claims of murkiness associated with Mr Bridgen including paid advocacy. See https://order-order.com/people/andrew-bridgen/
The US Evangelicals’ statistics are not supported by any reliable evidence
Some of those promoting the ‘sudden death after vax’ narrative are failing to understand that sudden cardiac death has been a thing for decades and prior to the introduction of the covid vax athletes suddenly dropping down dead or seriously ill with cardiac problems was quite well studied. See this from 2006. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17143117/
May I respectfully suggest you practice what you preach? If you have been nicked multiple times for speed you are part of the problem and certainly not part of the solution. Could it be that you yourself are fortunate not to have injured another? I have been driving for many more years than you and have never been nicked once.
No, not at Roy, I’m just not so hypocritical as to believe that the police “persecute” motorists. That’s three times in 22 years which given the mileage I do isn’t bad. I wasn’t speeding excessively, I was probably one of your “persecuted” ones, a few miles/hour over.
I just didn’t go grizzling about it.
You either don’t go anywhere or you’re just fortunate not to have been caught. Yet.
If you’ve been driving longer than I have, and please tell me you don’t drive a beige Nissan Micra automatic, I can imagine your car covered in scuff marks where you’ve grazed it against bollards, walls and other cars.
The police “persecute” elderly drivers like you too.
It used to be the speed limit + 10%+2mph.
So in a 30 limit you might be prosecuted if over 35, in a 40 limit if over 46.
This was to allow for inaccuracies on speedometers and also tyre wear.
But, of course, many chose to go to court to try to overturn a prosecution if the speed recorded by the police was very near to these thresholds.
Now speedometers are more accurate than the old-style mechanical ones, and modern tyre wear is less of a problem than with cross-ply ones, so they have tightened the limits.
What I do find fascinating is the difference between the speed indicated on my GPS and the speed indicated on the speedometer. Can’t recall right now which is higher but I’d be interested to know which is the more accurate. It can be as much as 4 mph.
@FH
Silence on Andrew Bridgen? Why?
Not got around to writing about it yet. I do have life you know LOL. There’s also I believe more to this story than meets the eye
You don’t think Andrew Bridgen isn’t just another Wakefield? He can’t give his source a name, and in any case the stats. don’t support his claims.
I was reading some dross on the internet yesterday put up by some right wind US Evangelicals. They all know somebody who knows somebody who had a serious adverse reaction, but strangely none of them have a name.
Odd that..
Not naming sources is sometimes unavoidable, but when it is done then you need to be able to trust those who are using anonymous sources to be credible and honest. For example I’d accept an article based on an anonymous source from someone like Patrick O’Flynn or Paul Embery, both writers who are at the reasonable end of the spectrum provided that I could see no reason for doubting the source’s information and if it was in context such as the testimony of a whistleblower that has been checked out. With some of the stuff put out by US evangelicals with regards vaccine after effects there does seem to be a lot of red flags such as anon info used to such an excess that it undermines the argument.
What I’ve seen recently shows that there’s more than the whiff of Wakefield about Bridgen, especially as he’s now mixed up with RFK Jr and his anti vaccination mob who are opposed not just to Sars Cov 2 vaccines but nearly all vaccines. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1613142562981675009