How do police define vulnerability?

In their 2018 Vulnerability Strategy @wiltshirepolice defined it as;

“A person is vulnerable/at risk if as a result of their situation or circumstances they are unable to protect themselves from
harm.”

They illustrate with the below. 1/n https://twitter.com/Bakerloo4/status/1308314675675885569

I think the graphic does a superb job at showing risk factors in vulnerability. But the definition has become so broad that its less about focusing on those less able to protect themselves from harm...

2/n

...and more about how everyone should be treated as individuals, with many factors that make up their identity.

That's laudable, but I have a fundamental problem with how this is framed.

3/n

The definition in this example has two requirements;

1. I tick one or more of the boxes in the graphic.
2. I'm less able to protect myself from harm.

4/n

Given one of the things in the box is 'difference' I suspect most people satisfy the first one.

The second is curious.

5/n

How can someone's ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation make them less able to protect themselves from harm?

I'm not comfortable with the presumption that all the factors listed make someone any less able to do anything than anyone else.

6/n

I suspect the intended meaning may be that people with the factors in the graphic are at increased chance of being exposed to harmful situations.

If im attacked, is the situation less harmful if I've successfully defended myself?

7/n

This definition illustrates my objection to the way we think about vulnerability.

It suggests that there is some link between certain immutable characteristics and ability level.

8/n

For example, I have a disability. What are my encounters with the police going to be like if they've been trained to presume I'm less able than someone without?

9/n

In the minds of the public, does it follow that my disability means I'm vulnerable and therefore am less able?

Is it unreasonable for me to perceive it so if public bodies are producing strategies that suggest that?

10/n

To avoid being seen as less able, do I need to hide my disability?

This is paradoxical.

11/n

If people with disabilities are seen as by default less able, and hide the disability to avoid that presumption, they are denied the chance to remove barriers to ability.

So the presumption that they're less able creates reduced ability that perhaps didn't exist at all.

12/n

So what's my point?

As is often the case, policies aimed at helping particular groups often end up reinforcing the very thing they're trying to address.

Public discussion about vulnerability has been rampant during the pandemic.

13/n

The vulnerable are spoken of as an infantalised out-group incapable of speaking for itself, so if they're to be protected others must speak for them.

14/n

They're stripped of their individuality and humanity. They are expected to accept gratefully any measures the public and government decide are necessary.

15/n

And finally, as I concluded in my other thread, the most vulnerable will continue to be those historically seen as not deserving of help.

They aren't in the minds of anyone discussing vulnerability now, meaning resources will be allocated with the same bias as always.

16/n

Thanks for reading. Two people who inspire me to talk about this stuff are @Baroness_Nichol and @SVPhillimore and I highly recommend you give them a follow.

17/n End.

Here is an example of how those considered vulnerable can be subjected to coercive and abusive behaviour when they don't gratefully accept the decisions made for them.

In that thread you even see the author making jokes about it as if it's normal. https://twitter.com/EleanorMargolis/status/1313064245798596608?s=19