Re: Police committing sexual crimes
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 4:00 pm
I think they're hoping we'll forget about them.
This included her full contact details.“also sent a copy of our record to the police officer(s), who is/are the subject of your complaint”.
So we have a woman being told by the professional standards officer that standard procedures had been followed when they hadn't, an officer being accused of violent conduct being called “a very reasonable guy”, and no-one understanding why a woman might be concerned that her address and phone number had been passed on to him.The complaint was eventually passed on to the Lewisham local police branch to investigate. The woman called to express her concern about the sharing of her personal data, but the professional standards officer at that office told her that standard procedures had been followed.
She eventually spoke with the officer’s line manager but said she was met with little understanding over her fears, and was reassured the officer in question was “a very reasonable guy”...
The Met Police admitted the personal details were shared with the male officer whose conduct she criticised, but said it believed the case to be “an isolated incident”. It added that personal information should be stripped from any document before it reaches the subject of a complaint.
The Met has since said it was an error and that they have changed their forms to prevent it happening again. There is nothing in the article that says they are going to investigate why the professional standards officer was unaware of actual standard procedures or why there was no concern, even just from a GDPR perspective, of personal details being passed to people not authorised to have them.“This was about 10 days after Wayne Couzens had admitted the kidnap of Sarah Everard six miles away, so it seemed particularly weird that none of the officers I’d talked to seemed to understand why as a woman I’d be particularly worried about a potentially violent police officer having my address,” she said.
But it's all ok because we can get plain clothes officers to video call back to their station and confirm that they're legit. What more could we want?the service provided by the officers involved in the arrest was acceptable.
Later, at a legal meeting, one of the other women duped by an undercover officer tells me that she felt close to breaking when the police wrote requesting she go through another assessment.
We all believe this tactic is designed to put other women off suing the police. There is a tsunami of new cases about to emerge, and an increase in public awareness means that other women who suspect they had a relationship with an undercover officer are seeking legal advice...
...the Crown Prosecution Service made a blanket statement on all our cases. There would be no prosecutions for sexual offences due to genuine feelings. Genuine feelings. They are trying to excuse Carlo by saying he really loved me. It is yet another deflating, denigrating experience, and highlights in the most basic way how institutionally sexist the criminal justice system is. Consent means nothing.
Just read that article. There is much to be angry about in the police behaviour but in particular what the f.ck was their justification for insisting that she had a psychiatric assessment?Fishnut wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:11 pmThis is an excerpt from a book by one of the women conned into a relationship by an undercover police officer. It sounds like she wasn't even that heavily involved in any causes, though she knew a few people who were.
They had a monogamous, committed relationship, yet she later found out he was married and his wife was pregnant at the time he was talking about having kids with her. A 2 year relationship was a lie. And when she tries to bring a case against the police they do all they can to wear her down so she'll stop pursuing justice.
Later, at a legal meeting, one of the other women duped by an undercover officer tells me that she felt close to breaking when the police wrote requesting she go through another assessment.
We all believe this tactic is designed to put other women off suing the police. There is a tsunami of new cases about to emerge, and an increase in public awareness means that other women who suspect they had a relationship with an undercover officer are seeking legal advice...
...the Crown Prosecution Service made a blanket statement on all our cases. There would be no prosecutions for sexual offences due to genuine feelings. Genuine feelings. They are trying to excuse Carlo by saying he really loved me. It is yet another deflating, denigrating experience, and highlights in the most basic way how institutionally sexist the criminal justice system is. Consent means nothing.
You had to interact with these bastards, or at least bastards who knew it was going on and did nothing. That doesn't seem trivial to me.
The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,Kristina O’Connor, now 33, called 101 after being attacked by a group of men who tried to steal her phone. When she was interviewed about the mugging by Detective Chief Inspector James Mason, who later became a right-hand man to Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner, he instead turned the conversation towards her love life and asked her out for dinner...
After her complaint, Mason... was found guilty at a hearing last year of gross misconduct that was sexually motivated. He kept his job and rank and still serves in the Met.
andPlease look after yourself while you’re out in Camden. Hopefully you will not be a victim of crime again but if you ever fancy having a drink with a very discreet police officer just let me know, it would be my pleasure.
While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.“If you have any visible injuries that you would like me to record then I am happy to take a picture for you and save it in case we manage to get any further in the investigation. I hope it doesn’t hurt too much and I am sure you still look amazingly hot.”
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.Fishnut wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:10 pmVia Jo Maugham on twitter, another case of a police officer seeing victims of crime as potential dates.The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,Kristina O’Connor, now 33, called 101 after being attacked by a group of men who tried to steal her phone. When she was interviewed about the mugging by Detective Chief Inspector James Mason, who later became a right-hand man to Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner, he instead turned the conversation towards her love life and asked her out for dinner...
After her complaint, Mason... was found guilty at a hearing last year of gross misconduct that was sexually motivated. He kept his job and rank and still serves in the Met.andPlease look after yourself while you’re out in Camden. Hopefully you will not be a victim of crime again but if you ever fancy having a drink with a very discreet police officer just let me know, it would be my pleasure.While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.“If you have any visible injuries that you would like me to record then I am happy to take a picture for you and save it in case we manage to get any further in the investigation. I hope it doesn’t hurt too much and I am sure you still look amazingly hot.”
Exactly.bagpuss wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 amYet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.Fishnut wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:10 pmVia Jo Maugham on twitter, another case of a police officer seeing victims of crime as potential dates.The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,Kristina O’Connor, now 33, called 101 after being attacked by a group of men who tried to steal her phone. When she was interviewed about the mugging by Detective Chief Inspector James Mason, who later became a right-hand man to Cressida Dick, the Met commissioner, he instead turned the conversation towards her love life and asked her out for dinner...
After her complaint, Mason... was found guilty at a hearing last year of gross misconduct that was sexually motivated. He kept his job and rank and still serves in the Met.andPlease look after yourself while you’re out in Camden. Hopefully you will not be a victim of crime again but if you ever fancy having a drink with a very discreet police officer just let me know, it would be my pleasure.While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.“If you have any visible injuries that you would like me to record then I am happy to take a picture for you and save it in case we manage to get any further in the investigation. I hope it doesn’t hurt too much and I am sure you still look amazingly hot.”
Indeed.jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:53 amExactly.bagpuss wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 amYet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.Fishnut wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:10 pmVia Jo Maugham on twitter, another case of a police officer seeing victims of crime as potential dates.
The Times include excerpts of the emails between O'Connor and DCI Mason. They include such lines as,
and
While I'm horrified by this case, I'm also amazed that the officer was so brazen as to put the comments in writing to the victim. This isn't internal WhatsApp groups or locker-room 'banter' among friends. This is a guy abusing his position of authority in a way that produces a paper trail accessible to the person most likely to report them. Initially I thought he was an idiot, but then I realised it's actually an indication of how safe he felt - he knew that even if she did complain he knew he wouldn't face any consequences. And he didn't. Sure, he was found guilty of gross misconduct but if he kept his job and his rank what repercussions has he faced? What consequences has he received that will make him think twice when presented with another "amazingly hot" victim? And even if he does get sacked as a result of the media coverage (and what I suspect will be more cases of inappropriate behaviour by him brought by other victims now they know they weren't the only ones) it won't do a f.cking thing. Because he's a symptom of a toxic culture that is infected root and branch and no report or inquiry or set of recommendations is going to be enough to remove the infection.
And another reason why Cressida Dick had to go.
Sadly, that really doesn't surprise me. I hope she is doing OK now and has all the support she needs.
I'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.bagpuss wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
Not if they train enough.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:06 pmI'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.bagpuss wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
The police have very specific qualifications. If they lack personnel the Met can't just recruit people in from another industry or start advertising in another country. It takes 2-3 years training to become a police constable, and presumably additional years for more specialized roles. I'm assuming that if they were to fire every police officer found to have committed gross misconduct that it would be difficult to replace them.
Actually, it might save money.
Gross misconduct should very much be an exception not a commonplace and in my understanding of the term fundamentally means that the employee has done something that means you really don't want that person working for you any more and more harm would be done to your organisation by keeping them employed than by dismissing them, despite all the costs incurred by replacing them.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:06 pmI'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.bagpuss wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
The police have very specific qualifications. If they lack personnel the Met can't just recruit people in from another industry or start advertising in another country. It takes 2-3 years training to become a police constable, and presumably additional years for more specialized roles. I'm assuming that if they were to fire every police officer found to have committed gross misconduct that it would be difficult to replace them.
I agree. It seems that there are very serious and widespread problems in the Met and other services. If the examples that have been discussed on this thread and others are indicative of systemic problems, and they do seem to be, then it would appear a large proportion of police officers would appear to be involved in gross misconduct.bagpuss wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:58 pmGross misconduct should very much be an exception not a commonplace and in my understanding of the term fundamentally means that the employee has done something that means you really don't want that person working for you any more and more harm would be done to your organisation by keeping them employed than by dismissing them, despite all the costs incurred by replacing them.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 12:06 pmI'm just speculating but there seems to be a big difference between different professions in terms of how easily people are sacked for misconduct (or just sent off to a training course). One explanation is probably the difficulty in replacing someone, which will be affected by whether there is a pool of qualified people looking for a job, or the time and resources needed to train a replacement.bagpuss wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:30 am
Yet again, I am flummoxed by what "Gross Misconduct" means in police parlance, because in every role I've ever been in, Gross Misconduct means you are immediately sacked, walked out of the door, no notice period, adieu not au revoir. You have the right to appeal, obviously, but if you are found guilty after that process, you're unquestionably out of the door and gone for good. I cannot fathom how someone could be guilty of gross misconduct but not even be demoted, let alone sacked.
The police have very specific qualifications. If they lack personnel the Met can't just recruit people in from another industry or start advertising in another country. It takes 2-3 years training to become a police constable, and presumably additional years for more specialized roles. I'm assuming that if they were to fire every police officer found to have committed gross misconduct that it would be difficult to replace them.
So if you have high enough levels of gross misconduct in your (not your personally, obviously) organisation that you need to keep those people working for you because you can't afford to lose them, then you really have a serious problem that senior people should be addressing as a priority. The kind of priority that requires urgent actions to be taken, not just something to talk about at the next quarterly meeting. I know that the police force, along with everyone else, has been massively underfunded over recent years in particular, but continuing to employ officers who have committed gross misconduct is not the solution.
No, it's just one bad apple, isn't it? ([/s] in case that wasn't obvious)Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:58 pmIsn't there a possibility that if those found to have committed gross misconduct were immediately sacked, others might be less likely to commit gross misconduct? And that if they suffer no serious sanction, then the chances that others will commit gross misconduct is increased? Hence you cannot estimate the impact on numbers employed of sacking for gross misconduct by looking at the incidence in an organisation that currently tolerates it.