Male violence and harassment of women

[Fishnut]

The Independent describes a new report produced for the National Police Chiefs Council and the Home Office examining how police forces tackle rape in England and Wales. It isn't linked (or even properly referenced) in the article but it's called Operation Soteria Bluestone Year 1 Report 2021 – 2022 and can be found here. I haven't read it yet (it's 192 pages) but the sub-title of the Indy article led me to this paragraph,

In all the pathfinder* police forces, some officers interviewed displayed a culture of disbelieving victims. There are serving officers today who don’t think that RAOSO should be a priority for policing. Some stated that they believed that most reports of rape are just examples of ‘regretful sex’, or that if victims presented additional issues, such as mental health problems or alcohol/substance misuse then this was the victim’s problem and the legal system was not obligated to safeguard them. Not surprisingly, these officers were less enthusiastic about whether there would be any successful change from the work of Operation Soteria Bluestone. These officers were found to be in the minority but nonetheless, they contribute to a considerable drag on progress, or obstruct progress (either intentionally or inadvertently), and influence how new officers are socialised into RAOSO work. [my emphasis]

* The Year 1 work programme consisted of research deep-dives in four police forces (known as ‘pathfinders’) between September 2021 and August 2022. The four pathfinder police forces are: the Metropolitan Police Service, Durham Constabulary, West Midlands Police and South Wales Police. [my asterisk]

It's good this sort of work is being done but holy f.ck does it highlight how useless the police are. From a piece on the National Police Chief's Council website,

...after 18 months, Avon and Somerset have increasing their adult rape charge rate from 3 per cent to over 10 per cent.

THREE PERCENT

[jimbob]

The Independent describes a new report produced for the National Police Chiefs Council and the Home Office examining how police forces tackle rape in England and Wales. It isn't linked (or even properly referenced) in the article but it's called Operation Soteria Bluestone Year 1 Report 2021 – 2022 and can be found here. I haven't read it yet (it's 192 pages) but the sub-title of the Indy article led me to this paragraph,

In all the pathfinder* police forces, some officers interviewed displayed a culture of disbelieving victims. There are serving officers today who don’t think that RAOSO should be a priority for policing. Some stated that they believed that most reports of rape are just examples of ‘regretful sex’, or that if victims presented additional issues, such as mental health problems or alcohol/substance misuse then this was the victim’s problem and the legal system was not obligated to safeguard them. Not surprisingly, these officers were less enthusiastic about whether there would be any successful change from the work of Operation Soteria Bluestone. These officers were found to be in the minority but nonetheless, they contribute to a considerable drag on progress, or obstruct progress (either intentionally or inadvertently), and influence how new officers are socialised into RAOSO work. [my emphasis]

* The Year 1 work programme consisted of research deep-dives in four police forces (known as ‘pathfinders’) between September 2021 and August 2022. The four pathfinder police forces are: the Metropolitan Police Service, Durham Constabulary, West Midlands Police and South Wales Police. [my asterisk]

It's good this sort of work is being done but holy f.ck does it highlight how useless the police are. From a piece on the National Police Chief's Council website,

...after 18 months, Avon and Somerset have increasing their adult rape charge rate from 3 per cent to over 10 per cent.

THREE PERCENT

Look at the evidence that was ignored in London.



https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn3dm/ ... pps-arrest

Exclusive: VICE World News has obtained WhatsApp messages and voicenotes sent by Andrew Tate to a woman who accused him of a 2013 rape. She said police told her they believed her account, but authorities declined to prosecute.

Descriptions of violent sexual acts in article

[Fishnut]

Look at the evidence that was ignored in London.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn3dm/ ... pps-arrest

Exclusive: VICE World News has obtained WhatsApp messages and voicenotes sent by Andrew Tate to a woman who accused him of a 2013 rape. She said police told her they believed her account, but authorities declined to prosecute.

Descriptions of violent sexual acts in article

I, like I suspect many others here, glossed over this post as I didn't have the capacity to read another article about rape being ignored by the British police. But I've been listening to the latest Behind the Bastards episode on Tate (they're doing a 3-parter) where they played some of the voice notes he left and I had to come back and emphasis how appalling this is.

Tate left a voice note on the woman's phone where he said, among other horrific things,

“Am I a bad person? Because the more you didn’t like it, the more I enjoyed it. I f.cking loved how much you hated it. It turned me on. Why am I like that? Why?”

and,

“Are you seriously so offended I strangled you a little bit. You didn’t f.cking pass out. Chill the f.ck out, Jesus Christ, I thought you were cool, what’s wrong with you”

The woman, pseudonymed 'Amelia' in the article, was raped in 2013 (should I put 'allegedly' in there? He admitted to doing it, but hasn't yet been convicted). She continued in the relationship with him for a few months, in part to convince herself that what happened wasn't what happened, and finally broke it off when she realised she was putting her life in danger by staying with him. She went to Bedfordshire Police in 2014 to report the rape, but they were so sh.t at handling the case she decided not to pursue it -

At one stage, Amelia said, the investigating officer asked her friend whether Amelia had learning difficulties, because she was struggling to speak.

She 'logged' the complaint with the police, putting it on record but not pursuing a criminal case against him, so if there were any further accusations her complaint would be seen. And guess what? There were other complaints.

In 2015 Hertfordshire Police contacted her saying two other women had accused Tate of sexual violence - one accusing him of rape, the other of him repeatedly strangling her (both things that happened to 'Amelia'). 'Amelia' provided the police a video statement and handed over her phone which included messages and voice notes from Tate.

Tate was then arrested and released under investigation. An investigation which didn't progress until 2019 when the police passed the case file to the CPS, who decided to not prosecute.

Amelia said the police officer even apologised for the decision, and told her words to the effect of, “It's not that the police don't believe you. It's not that the CPS don't believe you. It's the fact that there's an ounce of doubt in the case.”

According to Amelia, the officer said the element of doubt related to the fact she had had consensual sex with Tate in the wake of the alleged sexual assault, and that in sexual assault cases, the CPS was only prepared to prosecute when it felt 100 percent confident of success, because a trial resulting in acquittal would only further traumatise the complainant.

This feels incredibly paternalistic - isn't it up to the complainant what's going to be more traumatising? And it also seems to fly in the face of the CPS's own understanding of rape myths , which seems to be a common theme. They claim they understand that these myths are just myths yet still use them as an excuse not to pursue rape convictions. I'm curious if the CPS has the same 100% confidence requirement for other types of crime and if not, why they see sexual assault as 'special'.

It also feels like an indictment of their lawyers and their poor view of juries. Research from UCL found that jurors were largely disbelieving of rape myths so their fears of them causing aquittal seems misplaced, and even if they were valid it suggests they don't believe their lawyers are capable of adequately explaining to the jury why a victim would respond in a particular way.

As a result of the CPS's inability to prosecute a man who admitted in voice notes that he raped and strangled a woman he was allowed to go on to harm multiple other women. It's a situation we've seen time and time again and one I fear we'll keep seeing until the CPS gets the courage to start prosecuting rapists.

[lpm]

I'm sorry, but I find your current opinions hard to square with your previous strong support for the p.rnography industry. Or perhaps you've changed your opinion?

On another thread, we all agreed that men who want to commit abuses actively seek out positions of power and responsibility, i.e. join the police. Surely we must also agree that predatory men will get involved in the p.rnography industry because they want to commit abuses? In line with the arguments on the police thread, we cannot airbrush Tate away with the "one bad apple" excuse. How can we not conclude that both the p.rnography industry and sex industry are inherently built on predatory men committing violence, abuse and rape because that's what they want to do?

And can we not also conclude that dangerous abusive cis-hetereosexual men will also take advantage of the mess that is the gender ID/sex equality war? If predatory men are attracted to the police as an opportunity to bully and exploit, isn't it likely that some will be attracted to wearing a dress and lipstick for the same reasons?

I remain baffled as to why forum members, normally progressive, have always been so resolute in support of prostitution and p.rnography, while simultanously on other threads highlighting the extent to which predatory men will go. Maybe, I'm hoping, opinions have changed as a result of this and similar threads?

[noggins]

Yes, predatory men will be attracted to policing, so we should abolish the police.

[Tessa K]

Yes, predatory men will be attracted to policing, so we should abolish the police.

There's a good chance the Met as we know it will be effectively abolished and remade.

[snoozeofreason]

I'm curious if the CPS has the same 100% confidence requirement for other types of crime and if not, why they see sexual assault as 'special'.

When deciding whether or not to prosecute, the CPS is supposed to apply a two-stage test. In the first, evidential, stage they have to convince themselves that a properly instructed jury would be more likely than not to convict (so that's a minimum probability of 50% rather than 100%). In the second stage they need to convince themselves that it would be in the public interest to charge the suspect. The guidance given to prosecutors is that it would almost always be in the public interest to prosecute a rape case.

It seems unlikely that the CPS are systematically looking for a 100% probability for rape at the evidential stage because, if they were, then conviction rates (expressed as the percentage of charges that result in conviction) would also be close to 100%. They are, in fact, somewhat lower than the average for all offences.

[discovolante]

She 'logged' the complaint with the police, putting it on record but not pursuing a criminal case against him, so if there were any further accusations her complaint would be seen. And guess what? There were other complaints.

Can you clarify what was said in the episode? It's not a decision for the complainer whether or not to prosecute, it's the CPS's. Of course the CPS may be less likely to do so if they have reason to believe an important witness won't give evidence, and I think there are protocols around making decisions in these sorts of situations (although guidance for the public suggests they should go ahead regardless if theres enough evidence: https://www.cps.gov.uk/rasso-guide/how- ... our-case-0), but I'm interested to know what was said.

[Fishnut]

She 'logged' the complaint with the police, putting it on record but not pursuing a criminal case against him, so if there were any further accusations her complaint would be seen. And guess what? There were other complaints.

Can you clarify what was said in the episode? It's not a decision for the complainer whether or not to prosecute, it's the CPS's. Of course the CPS may be less likely to do so if they have reason to believe an important witness won't give evidence, and I think there are protocols around making decisions in these sorts of situations (although guidance for the public suggests they should go ahead regardless if theres enough evidence: https://www.cps.gov.uk/rasso-guide/how- ... our-case-0), but I'm interested to know what was said.

For that section of the episode I think they were relying on the reporting in the Vice article. From my reading, she went to the police about 6 months after the rape and they were their usual dismissive selves, so she didn't push them to do anything about it and they were happy to leave it there. It sounds like although Tate had already left the incriminating voice memos and messages, Amelia didn't pass them on to the police at that time (which suggests to me that they failed to build up any sort of trust with her that they were taking her case seriously).

It wasn’t until 2014, about six months after the alleged rape, that Amelia filed a complaint with Bedfordshire Police, feeling that she finally had the strength and clarity to do so.

But she found the experience extremely demoralising, she said. At the time, she had only recently accepted what had happened to her, after months of denial, was hugely traumatised, and relied on a friend – a different person than the one she called after the alleged rape – to help speak on her behalf as a support person during the interview.

At one stage, Amelia said, the investigating officer asked her friend whether Amelia had learning difficulties, because she was struggling to speak.

“That made me feel so small… like, I can't even be emotional,” Amelia recalled. “I can't even … feel how I'm feeling, because you're trying to put me down.”

This perceived dismissive attitude, combined with her trauma and ongoing fear of Tate, left her feeling unable to pursue the complaint, and she instead opted to “log” it – recording the allegation with police to potentially pick up again when she felt stronger.

Purely speculation on my part, but it sounds like the police didn't bother to properly investigate and as such the CPS weren't even told that there was a case for them to review.

The following year Amelia was contacted by Hertfordshire Police after they'd received further complaints against Tate. That's when the police took 4 years before passing the case on to the CPS who then turned around and said 'nah'.

Vice also has interviews with the other women who accused Tate of rape and strangulation in 2015. Helen is the pseudonym for the woman who also accused Tate of rape, Sally is the pseudonym for the woman who accused Tate of repeatedly strangling her.

The women told us that Helen received a letter from the CPS informing her that voice notes Helen and Sally exchanged informed the decision not to charge Tate. According to Sally and Helen, they discussed in the voice notes whether they should tell police that Tate gave them alcohol. They decided to do so, they said, because according to them that is what happened...

The CPS, whose job involves assessing whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction, told VICE World News that they determined the case “did not meet our legal test, and there was no realistic prospect of a conviction” – despite Sally having allegedly been an eyewitness to Helen’s rape...

Asked about the voice notes specifically, a CPS spokesperson would only say: "There were a number of evidential issues that led us to conclude our legal test was not met."

The stuff about alcohol is particularly frustrating given that the CPS's Tackling Rape Myths and Stereotypes (a document I keep coming back to because they seem so intent on ignoring it) has a whole section on alcohol:

Myth 16. If you drink alcohol or use drugs then you have made yourself vulnerable to being raped and you bear the responsibility. (FALSE)
Implications
- Disregards the law on consent, including capacity to consent and reasonable belief that someone was consenting.
- Assumes that being under the influence of alcohol / drugs means that someone is looking for, or willing to have, sex.
- Assumes that if someone is looking for sex, they therefore consent to anything that happens or are deserving of anything that happens.
Considerations to Address Myth
- Section 74 SOA 2003 - “For the purposes of this part, a person consents if he or she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”.
- Victims of rape are never responsible, wholly or in part, for their rape or sexual assault, regardless of whether they have drunk alcohol, taken drugs, are asleep or otherwise incapacitated.
- Consider carefully the role which alcohol or drugs might have on freedom and capacity to consent as well as steps taken to obtain consent and reasonable belief that someone was consenting.
- Some people drink alcohol and some people take drugs. This does not provide a justification or reason for someone to rape or be raped.
- Just because a person is drunk or has taken drugs does not mean that they must be looking for, or willing to have, sex. (from Crown Court Compendium)
- It would also be wrong to leap to the conclusion that someone else who sees and interacts with that person could reasonably believe that person would consent to sex. (from Crown Court Compendium)
- If someone is unable to give consent because they are drunk, drugged or unconscious, it is rape.

[Woodchopper]

Vice also has interviews with the other women who accused Tate of rape and strangulation in 2015. Helen is the pseudonym for the woman who also accused Tate of rape, Sally is the pseudonym for the woman who accused Tate of repeatedly strangling her.

The women told us that Helen received a letter from the CPS informing her that voice notes Helen and Sally exchanged informed the decision not to charge Tate. According to Sally and Helen, they discussed in the voice notes whether they should tell police that Tate gave them alcohol. They decided to do so, they said, because according to them that is what happened...

The CPS, whose job involves assessing whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction, told VICE World News that they determined the case “did not meet our legal test, and there was no realistic prospect of a conviction” – despite Sally having allegedly been an eyewitness to Helen’s rape...

Asked about the voice notes specifically, a CPS spokesperson would only say: "There were a number of evidential issues that led us to conclude our legal test was not met."

The stuff about alcohol is particularly frustrating given that the CPS's Tackling Rape Myths and Stereotypes (a document I keep coming back to because they seem so intent on ignoring it) has a whole section on alcohol:

Myth 16. If you drink alcohol or use drugs then you have made yourself vulnerable to being raped and you bear the responsibility. (FALSE)
Implications
- Disregards the law on consent, including capacity to consent and reasonable belief that someone was consenting.
- Assumes that being under the influence of alcohol / drugs means that someone is looking for, or willing to have, sex.
- Assumes that if someone is looking for sex, they therefore consent to anything that happens or are deserving of anything that happens.
Considerations to Address Myth
- Section 74 SOA 2003 - “For the purposes of this part, a person consents if he or she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”.
- Victims of rape are never responsible, wholly or in part, for their rape or sexual assault, regardless of whether they have drunk alcohol, taken drugs, are asleep or otherwise incapacitated.
- Consider carefully the role which alcohol or drugs might have on freedom and capacity to consent as well as steps taken to obtain consent and reasonable belief that someone was consenting.
- Some people drink alcohol and some people take drugs. This does not provide a justification or reason for someone to rape or be raped.
- Just because a person is drunk or has taken drugs does not mean that they must be looking for, or willing to have, sex. (from Crown Court Compendium)
- It would also be wrong to leap to the conclusion that someone else who sees and interacts with that person could reasonably believe that person would consent to sex. (from Crown Court Compendium)
- If someone is unable to give consent because they are drunk, drugged or unconscious, it is rape.

Probably a foolish point and disco and snooze know a lot more than me. But it seems possible that the issue wasn't that they were given alcohol, but that the accuser and a witness discussed in the voice messages whether or not they should give certain information to the police.

[Fishnut]

Probably a foolish point and disco and snooze know a lot more than me. But it seems possible that the issue wasn't that they were given alcohol, but that the accuser and a witness discussed in the voice messages whether or not they should give certain information to the police.

Not foolish at all and is a fair interpretation of the situation.

I would still argue (with the CPS, not you!) that them debating whether or not to tell the police the full details of the circumstances around which the rape took place is entirely understandable given how poorly the police treat rape victims and that they ended up giving those full circumstances gives them more credibility not less.

It's impossible for us to know the full reasoning of the CPS without them publishing it, and I doubt they would do that. Regardless of the ins and outs of these particular cases, I do think they fit with the pattern of the police and CPS disbelieving victims, using their words against them and setting the bar for prosecution extraordinarily high in an effort to pursue as few cases to court as possible.

The second Vice article points out that the case was dropped in 2019 around the same time that the Guardian was reporting that the CPS was dropping 'weak' cases in an attempt to improve conviction rates.

In 2019, the same year CPS declined to bring charges against Tate, UK newspaper the Guardian reported on a CPS seminar wherein the CPS director of legal services, Greg McGill, and the director of public prosecutions’ legal adviser, Neil Moore, urged prosecutors to take a proportion of “weak cases out of the system” to improve conviction rates.

One prosecutor who attended the seminar claimed staff were told: “If we took 350 weak cases out of the system, our conviction rate goes up to 61 percent.”

The Guardian reported that the CPS did not challenge the reported language used by the officials, and said the seminars were part of “ongoing training to ensure our prosecutors have access to the latest information on new and refreshed legal guidance.”

The women were both working for Tate in his webcam sex business which automatically makes them less worthy and less reliable in the eyes of the police. I'm sure Tate was able to be charismatic and appeal to their "bitches be lyin'" sensibilities so it became a 'he said she said' even though what 'she said' showed a pattern of behaviour while what 'he said' was contradicted by voice memos and messages Tate himself had left his previous victim.

And let's not forget, it's Romanian police who have arrested Tate and I can't find anything to suggest that the CPS is considering re-opening the cases against Tate. (Being generous, it may be that they're working with the Romanian police behind the scenes and are keeping quiet during an active investigation but the silence from them at this time is quite deafening).

[purplehaze]

It's quite obvious the correlation between p.rn users and misogyny when it comes to sexual abuse, violence, rape and murder. Often it ends in murder, eventually because of escalation. Never underestimate the man who exposes himself - they do escalate violent behaviour towards women and girls and it does lead to serious injury and death. All of these men use p.rnography and escalate it into violent p.rn, which can only take days to do.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64370211

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i ... d-25105173

I am supporting at this time a woman whose partner of over 10 years has been caught using so called 'teenage p.rn', although the images clearly depicted child abuse. This man is the same age as her - mid 40s - and saw nothing wrong with his viewing because everyone he knew did it, which is quite alarming if he is to be believed.

[Woodchopper]

Probably a foolish point and disco and snooze know a lot more than me. But it seems possible that the issue wasn't that they were given alcohol, but that the accuser and a witness discussed in the voice messages whether or not they should give certain information to the police.

Not foolish at all and is a fair interpretation of the situation.

I would still argue (with the CPS, not you!) that them debating whether or not to tell the police the full details of the circumstances around which the rape took place is entirely understandable given how poorly the police treat rape victims and that they ended up giving those full circumstances gives them more credibility not less.

I think it would be reasonable for the two women to talk about it. But as far as I know if that was seen to be evidence of collusion then it would likely have an effect on the chances of getting a prosecution.

It's impossible for us to know the full reasoning of the CPS without them publishing it, and I doubt they would do that. Regardless of the ins and outs of these particular cases, I do think they fit with the pattern of the police and CPS disbelieving victims, using their words against them and setting the bar for prosecution extraordinarily high in an effort to pursue as few cases to court as possible.

The second Vice article points out that the case was dropped in 2019 around the same time that the Guardian was reporting that the CPS was dropping 'weak' cases in an attempt to improve conviction rates.

In 2019, the same year CPS declined to bring charges against Tate, UK newspaper the Guardian reported on a CPS seminar wherein the CPS director of legal services, Greg McGill, and the director of public prosecutions’ legal adviser, Neil Moore, urged prosecutors to take a proportion of “weak cases out of the system” to improve conviction rates.

One prosecutor who attended the seminar claimed staff were told: “If we took 350 weak cases out of the system, our conviction rate goes up to 61 percent.”

The Guardian reported that the CPS did not challenge the reported language used by the officials, and said the seminars were part of “ongoing training to ensure our prosecutors have access to the latest information on new and refreshed legal guidance.”

The women were both working for Tate in his webcam sex business which automatically makes them less worthy and less reliable in the eyes of the police. I'm sure Tate was able to be charismatic and appeal to their "bitches be lyin'" sensibilities so it became a 'he said she said' even though what 'she said' showed a pattern of behaviour while what 'he said' was contradicted by voice memos and messages Tate himself had left his previous victim.

And let's not forget, it's Romanian police who have arrested Tate and I can't find anything to suggest that the CPS is considering re-opening the cases against Tate. (Being generous, it may be that they're working with the Romanian police behind the scenes and are keeping quiet during an active investigation but the silence from them at this time is quite deafening).

Yes, it does seem like the CPS became more likely to drop cases as a consequence of it being put under pressure to secure a higher percentage of convictions. It could be that this is an example of a perverse effect, that something intended to lead to more convictions had the opposite outcome.

[Tessa K]

It's not just adult women of course

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64396513

information provided to the Met before Chehab joined the force was reviewed and he also went through further child and vulnerable group supervision vetting before beginning his role as a Safer Schools officer, but "nothing was found that could have indicated his offending".

[jimbob]

It's not just adult women of course

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64396513

information provided to the Met before Chehab joined the force was reviewed and he also went through further child and vulnerable group supervision vetting before beginning his role as a Safer Schools officer, but "nothing was found that could have indicated his offending".

I'm afraid I am not surprised. After all, why would the Met suddenly manage competent vetting procedures for those officers applying to work with children when they fail everywhere else?

It is still shocking

[IvanV]

And let's not forget, it's Romanian police who have arrested Tate and I can't find anything to suggest that the CPS is considering re-opening the cases against Tate. (Being generous, it may be that they're working with the Romanian police behind the scenes and are keeping quiet during an active investigation but the silence from them at this time is quite deafening).

The police in many other places make the Met look like angels by comparison. For example, the Baltimore Police Department.

So Tate in Romania is apparently a very rich foreigner with his highly visible and mobile assets - expensive cars - engaged in the sex industry and with lurid allegations attached to him, hardly keeping his head below the parapet. There is the possibility that what is going on there is not a rigorous and careful investigation of a criminal case.

[temptar]

As opposed to the UK where they weren't gloriously great either? Come on Ivan.

[IvanV]

As opposed to the UK where they weren't gloriously great either? Come on Ivan.

No, they aren't gloriously great. There is still corruption and misdemeanour in the police, and insufficient willingness to acknowledge that by the police themselves. And we have a p.ssy-cat of a police complaints authority which seems to exist largely for show. And a p.ssy-cat of a miscarriage of justice authority which can eventually be persuaded to take action only on the most egregious cases only after long and persistent campaigning, while the great majority of wrongly convicted suffer their sentences. Etc. And a government which doesn't seem to mind that justice in this country is increasingly faint and approximate.

But what goes on is not on the scale of 50 years ago, nor on the scale that still persists in many other countries. We have moved on from the times when a substantial proportion of the Met, right to the top, were enriching themselves on corruptly gained money shaken down out of the vice economy of London. And when it was discovered that the Birmingham Serious Crime Squad was responsible for perpetrating a substantial fraction of the Serious Crime in Birmingham, rather than preventing it.

Today, if Mr Tate was arrested in London and his expensive cars taken away, we wouldn't think that the likely recipients of the valuable items taken away would be people in authority rather than public funds. And that their motivation for taking action was because they hadn't been sufficiently paid off, or simply because they felt they could get away with it. But it is still reasonable to be concerned that might be what is going on in many other countries.

[Stephanie]

But what goes on is not on the scale of 50 years ago, nor on the scale that still persists in many other countries. We have moved on from the times when a substantial proportion of the Met, right to the top, were enriching themselves on corruptly gained money shaken down out of the vice economy of London. And when it was discovered that the Birmingham Serious Crime Squad was responsible for perpetrating a substantial fraction of the Serious Crime in Birmingham, rather than preventing it.

"things were worse back then / in this other country" isn't particularly of comfort when we are talking about allegations coming out about the Met right now. This isn't the right thread for it, Ivan.

[noggins]

ivanv is right in that other times and places are worse: but the fact that things were once worse and then improved doesn't mean that the improvement has stalled and inow things are getting worse again.

[Sciolus]

I think it's worth pointing out that things used to be worse, and have improved in response to public pressure and specific actions, because it shows that pressure works (albeit slowly and with great effort), and it's worth continuing with it to achieve the necessary further improvements.

[Grumble]

But on the other hand many of us have been under the impression that things had improved more than they really did. Who knows how bad it really is now? Worse than we know, and that’s a guarantee.

[IvanV]

This isn't the right thread for it, Ivan.

All I was trying to say is that what is going on in Romania right now is potentially not the same kind of thing that we would expect to be going on here, if the guy had been arrested here and his expensive cars taken away. And might therefore have a disappointing outcome.

I was heckled in a way that made me feel what I said was made to look stupid, when it wasn't. I'm sorry I was rather clumsy in defending that.

[jimbob]

Interesting thread on ISF

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=364163

The conviction rates (as in getting a guilty verdict at court, which is different from the detection rate, which is how many crimes are reported by the police for prosecution) for rape and sexual offences is traditionally very low and the government is determined to drive them up.

https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/ ... es-to-fail

"In England and Wales, more than 99% of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult.
At present, charge rates for rape vary wildly between regions, from 1.3% in Surrey to 8.2% in Durham."

An ONS survey has revealed a reason for that, which is rarely discussed;

https://twitter.com/DannyShawNews/statu ... 6614285314

"A sample of sexual offences recorded by police show that 22% and 31% of rapes took place over a year before the incident was recorded."

There is no other crime, where the victim so often waits so long to report what happened. In between time, evidence is lost, memories fade and get distorted and then this;

"Cases take, on average, 817 days to reach court, and 63% of cases are closed because the victim has given up on the process and withdrawn from it."

How many of that 63% had already waited over a year to report the crime?

The OP is a retired Scottish police officer who has become disgusted with police behaviour

[Tessa K]

Any thoughts on banning the song Delilah at matches?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64511615