Women's safety

orraloon

It doesn't stop. Humans do what humans do, just a certain % are sub-. Until climate change wipes out Homo 'sapiens'.

Edit: fcukin childish forum censorship does not permit the use of the genus name for the human race. FFS.

john80

rjsterry said:

I mean great that this one is locked up but what are the Met actually going to do to prevent the next? And restore some confidence. An exemplary investigation after the crime and expressions of sadness are not enough.

If they focus on coppers who do domestic violence then that might be a big step. However I am not convinced women should be scared of police officers based on this one example. Happy to be proven wrong but doubt police are disproportionately kidnapping, raping and murdering women.

DeVlaeminck

Yes this case is extreme. The quote from a female police officer is concerning if true though.

A long time ago - must be 1990ish - I worked as an interviewer on a research project looking at experiences of women police officers focusing on sexism, sexual harassment, assault etc. Some of the stories were pretty shocking though the worst were experienced officers recounting their experiences of being young police women in the 1970s and early 1980s.

rjsterry

Well let's all shrug and assume nothing can be done.

Or someone could look at how (TF) the Met end up employing a violent misogynist as a front line officer and maybe see if there's anything they can change.

pblakeney

Are we assuming that violent misogynists let people know they are violent misogynists in advance of committing the act?
Or that the MET know and cover up?

john80

pblakeney said:

Are we assuming that violent misogynists let people know they are violent misogynists in advance of committing the act?
Or that the MET know and cover up?

Whilst I doubt he walked into Cresinda Dicks office and tried to rape her I would suspect that there were a few colleagues that had doubts about him. The problem for all those that had doubts is any of those experiences enough to get him kicked out a job or not. That will be for their consciences to decide.

How many people on here have had a colleague you would not trust with your dog never mind the wife and kids.

orraloon

Co

john80 said:

How many people on here have had a colleague you would not trust with your dog never mind the wife and kids.

Correctamundo. In my last corporate world job, function global director was a psycho sexist f-wit who no one in his 'team' would trust one iota and we had to work around. Because he was top dog there were zero options to alert, even if the head honchos cared. I left. With a sizeable payoff.

pblakeney

Omerta in another guise. If you keep quiet you are complicit.
No, I've never worked with anyone whose actions warrant reporting.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Are we assuming that violent misogynists let people know they are violent misogynists in advance of committing the act?
Or that the MET know and cover up?

His colleagues reportedly gave him the nickname 'the rapist'.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Are we assuming that violent misogynists let people know they are violent misogynists in advance of committing the act?
Or that the MET know and cover up?

His colleagues reportedly gave him the nickname 'the rapist'.

Any company or corporation should be following up reports like this. Warrants an investigation. I am only wary as some people enjoy police bashing. The term, not the action.

DeVlaeminck

I used to work with a guy who stayed over at a female colleagues' place - she had to lock herself in her room because of his "advances" that night.

She confided in me because she was unsure whether she was over/under reacting and was just trying to get a perspective in it.

Anyway after I'd left I met 3 female PhD students from there on a night out - I'd had an adjacent office to them - and through one of their dads they'd found out the guy was a convicted rapist with a new identity - he'd converted to Islam and taken on an Islamic name - and the head of dept knew this bit still employed him as a PT lecturer with access to students.

It was only when they told me that some of this guy's behaviour (he shared an office with me some of the week) suddenly looked very worrying.

davidof

DeVlaeminck said:

I

Anyway after I'd left I met 3 female PhD students from there on a night out - I'd had an adjacent office to them - and through one of their dads they'd found out the guy was a convicted rapist with a new identity - he'd converted to Islam and taken on an Islamic name - and the head of dept knew this bit still employed him as a PT lecturer with access to students.

bit Islamophobic, mate.

DeVlaeminck

davidof said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I

Anyway after I'd left I met 3 female PhD students from there on a night out - I'd had an adjacent office to them - and through one of their dads they'd found out the guy was a convicted rapist with a new identity - he'd converted to Islam and taken on an Islamic name - and the head of dept knew this bit still employed him as a PT lecturer with access to students.

bit Islamophobic, mate.

Probably. I used to wonder if his conversion was just a cover for adopting a new identity to hide his past.

He's now reverted to his original non Islamic name and identity - I looked him up on t'internet and he's claiming his conversion to Islam was to aid his social anthropological research.

rick_chasey

There are absolutely men who get away with being letchy and/or worse in work.

Have worked in an office where I found out someone had a rep. I was on my way out anyway but I encouraged the women to leave and explain why and I backed them up and was their referee in case the firm refused to give a good reference.

They didn't in the end but the bloke still works there and I don't think they did anything. He was the boss and it was a small firm, so that was that.

You hear a lot of stories in my job about men at the bigger firms - I think some of them get a real power complex when they're senior in these really big firms and it all gets mixed up with sex and you end up with some terrible stories.

Absolutely some partners in very big house-hold name firms who everyone knows are dodgy and they're still there.

Cases have obviously gone down during corona - one less discussed benefit of not having to work together..!

It is not always abuse though - quite often you hear stories about affairs with male bosses and less senior women - and the women are always the ones who end up leaving the firm. Was a very high profile one at exco level of a big UK firm, he was head of the main revenue generating business, she was head of HR. Guess who left when the board found out about the affair?

Pross

davidof said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I

Anyway after I'd left I met 3 female PhD students from there on a night out - I'd had an adjacent office to them - and through one of their dads they'd found out the guy was a convicted rapist with a new identity - he'd converted to Islam and taken on an Islamic name - and the head of dept knew this bit still employed him as a PT lecturer with access to students.

bit Islamophobic, mate.

Was it not just an explanation of the name change?

rjsterry

F***ing hell. The Met are actually publicly suggesting that if you are stopped by a lone police officer and are unsure of their intentions you could "flag down a bus".

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

F***ing hell. The Met are actually publicly suggesting that if you are stopped by a lone police officer and are unsure of their intentions you could "flag down a bus".

or ring 999.

orraloon

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

F***ing hell. The Met are actually publicly suggesting that if you are stopped by a lone police officer and are unsure of their intentions you could "flag down a bus".

or ring 999.

That would the obvious safety measure.

elbowloh

Does the police attract the wrong kind of people. The police in the US seems to attract some very trigger happy people and just saw this story below from France that sees to link DNA evidence from a serial killer to a policeman.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58749596

rick_chasey

US policing is a real minefield and basically lacks any regulatory oversight. That and the genuine risks to police creates a total disaster zone.

Who polices the police is always a challenge and is why things like Line of Duty are interesting, but you get the impression generally the police are really reticent of being challenged about the way they do things.

I mainly wish they could be more open about why they do the things the way they do. A bit more dialogue between rozzers and normal folk is probably helpful.

Pross

elbowloh said:

Does the police attract the wrong kind of people. The police in the US seems to attract some very trigger happy people and just saw this story below from France that sees to link DNA evidence from a serial killer to a policeman.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58749596

Possibly different in (parts of) the US but I think is this country the vast majority are people atrracted to the job to do some good. There are around 160,000 police in the UK and how often do we hear of committing major crimes? I think this is teh sort of thing the Met Police chief was saying yesterday about the damage this case has caused to reputation. Positions of power are always vulnerable to being abused and the vetting process manages to weed out the majority of people who are potential risks but some are very devious and able to hide their true personality. The same happens with doctors, social workers, prison officers, school workers (remember Soham?) etc. etc.

I think people forget the danger police officers are in on a day to day basis. My daughter's 23 year old friend had to attend an incident last year where her sargeant got stabbed trying to stop someone burning down their neighbours house. She had to help hold his guts in until the ambulance came. Having to deal with things like that probably limits the type of person who applies.

rjsterry

I don't think anyone suggests it is not a difficult job with significant risk. Not that other public servants aren't assaulted on a regular basis, without the backup that the police have. But that really is a separate issue.

Couzens had allegations of indecent exposure against him before he applied to join the firearms unit. Somehow they skipped that in the vetting process.

It's also come to light that he was a member of a WhatsApp group sharing misogynist and racist content with 5 other officers, 3 in the Met. Those officers are still on duty.

And the Met's solution is: could everyone else double check that any interactions with their force are legitimate? As if Couzens wasn't a real police officer and resisting arrest has zero consequences.

I'm just gobsmacked that they think those are even reasonable suggestions.

rjsterry

Here's an example of someone querying the legitimacy of an attempt to arrest.

https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1251431355663220736?s=19

Officer: I'll make something up. Who are they going to believe? Me or you?.

The officer in question was just given a written warning and that was that.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

Here's an example of someone querying the legitimacy of an attempt to arrest.

https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1251431355663220736?s=19

Officer: I'll make something up. Who are they going to believe? Me or you?.

The officer in question was just given a written warning and that was that.

If the same type of rigour was applied to police as is (correctly) applied to teachers and others who work with children (being trustworthy with children), lying/fabrication would be a disqualifying action for police officers, given that being trustworthy with evidence should be a prerequisite for being in the job. Quite rightly, teachers don't get a second chance if they breach their trust.

john80

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Here's an example of someone querying the legitimacy of an attempt to arrest.

https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1251431355663220736?s=19

Officer: I'll make something up. Who are they going to believe? Me or you?.

The officer in question was just given a written warning and that was that.

If the same type of rigour was applied to police as is (correctly) applied to teachers and others who work with children (being trustworthy with children), lying/fabrication would be a disqualifying action for police officers, given that being trustworthy with evidence should be a prerequisite for being in the job. Quite rightly, teachers don't get a second chance if they breach their trust.

They are two separate things. Fiddling with kids is pretty serious and has to be proven against a teacher for them to be struck off. Officers deal with liars on a daily basis so also need to have allegations against them proven. If officers have a pattern of behaviour of lying about small stuff they do get investigated. Are we really claiming that there are many officers still in employment that have been found to have fabricated evidence by the relevent investigation department.

rjsterry

john80 said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Here's an example of someone querying the legitimacy of an attempt to arrest.

https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1251431355663220736?s=19

Officer: I'll make something up. Who are they going to believe? Me or you?.

The officer in question was just given a written warning and that was that.

If the same type of rigour was applied to police as is (correctly) applied to teachers and others who work with children (being trustworthy with children), lying/fabrication would be a disqualifying action for police officers, given that being trustworthy with evidence should be a prerequisite for being in the job. Quite rightly, teachers don't get a second chance if they breach their trust.

They are two separate things. Fiddling with kids is pretty serious and has to be proven against a teacher for them to be struck off. Officers deal with liars on a daily basis so also need to have allegations against them proven. If officers have a pattern of behaviour of lying about small stuff they do get investigated. Are we really claiming that there are many officers still in employment that have been found to have fabricated evidence by the relevent investigation department.

Enough to undermine trust in the police, yes. The guys in Couzens WhatsApp group are still on duty. The Met have just publicly told the public not to trust their officers if they are acting alone and to challenge an attempt to arrest. Given what happens when people resist arrest, you can see why people might think the Met have lost the plot.

seanoconn

I was talking to a couple of police officers this morning at the kids football and asked their option on matters. The expected response, that they shouldn’t all be held accountable for one guy and that the medical profession has a staggering amount of sexual deviants which doesn’t get a mention for example. Also if the MP’s don’t back them it could get very messy for the MP’s. A lot of dirt, unsurprisingly.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Here's an example of someone querying the legitimacy of an attempt to arrest.

https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1251431355663220736?s=19

Officer: I'll make something up. Who are they going to believe? Me or you?.

The officer in question was just given a written warning and that was that.

If the same type of rigour was applied to police as is (correctly) applied to teachers and others who work with children (being trustworthy with children), lying/fabrication would be a disqualifying action for police officers, given that being trustworthy with evidence should be a prerequisite for being in the job. Quite rightly, teachers don't get a second chance if they breach their trust.

They are two separate things. Fiddling with kids is pretty serious and has to be proven against a teacher for them to be struck off. Officers deal with liars on a daily basis so also need to have allegations against them proven. If officers have a pattern of behaviour of lying about small stuff they do get investigated. Are we really claiming that there are many officers still in employment that have been found to have fabricated evidence by the relevent investigation department.

Enough to undermine trust in the police, yes. The guys in Couzens WhatsApp group are still on duty. The Met have just publicly told the public not to trust their officers if they are acting alone and to challenge an attempt to arrest. Given what happens when people resist arrest, you can see why people might think the Met have lost the plot.

I guess they treat white women differently to black men.

rick_chasey

seanoconn said:

I was talking to a couple of police officers this morning at the kids football and asked their option on matters. The expected response, that they shouldn’t all be held accountable for one guy and that the medical profession has a staggering amount of sexual deviants which doesn’t get a mention for example. Also if the MP’s don’t back them it could get very messy for the MP’s. A lot of dirt, unsurprisingly.

Ah good old blackmail. What is this, The Wire?

rjsterry

seanoconn said:

I was talking to a couple of police officers this morning at the kids football and asked their option on matters. The expected response, that they shouldn’t all be held accountable for one guy and that the medical profession has a staggering amount of sexual deviants which doesn’t get a mention for example. Also if the MP’s don’t back them it could get very messy for the MP’s. A lot of dirt, unsurprisingly.

Oh great. So, basically they don't think they should do anything and if you force them they'll push back.
They obviously still don't get it.