Scrutable

It's frustrating to me that those in a position of power and often in contact with vulnerable people can get away with far greater and more harmful crimes, than someone who stole some work supplies

It's astonishing, or it should be, that so many police officers, of all people, have such low standards of honesty and integrity. What did they join up for? (No need to answer that.)

bagpuss wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:06 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:58 pm

Isn'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.

No, it's just one bad apple, isn't it? ([/s] in case that wasn't obvious)

It does seem like a reasonable hypothesis, at least, that allowing people who behave that way to continue in their careers with little or no impact, would at least not discourage others very much from doing the same. That is, after all, the whole damn point of the bad apple saying - one bad apple spoils the barrel.

Let's change the gross misconduct for a second to, say, theft - if someone is found to have stolen several laptops from the office and is given little more than a slap on the wrist, and then another person steals some mobile phones and receives similar treatment then, apart from innate/thoroughly inculcated honesty and ethics, what's to stop everyone from stealing stuff with impunity? Of course you're not going to just let people steal expensive equipment and carry on in their jobs, so why is it OK to allow officers guilty of sexual crimes to do so?

Usually the biggest deterrent factor among those that already want to do something is the likelihood of getting caught and publicly outed, rather than the severity of the punishment. Obviously there needs to be a minimum level of punishment though. But a lower level of punishment sometimes means you can use a lower standard of proof (we're talking about employment consequences here, rather than criminal sanctions), which in turn increases the chances of getting caught.

Working on getting people that don't want to do the thing and a culture that doesn't tolerate the desire is, of course, better.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 5:04 pm

bagpuss wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:06 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:58 pm

Isn'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.

No, it's just one bad apple, isn't it? ([/s] in case that wasn't obvious)

It does seem like a reasonable hypothesis, at least, that allowing people who behave that way to continue in their careers with little or no impact, would at least not discourage others very much from doing the same. That is, after all, the whole damn point of the bad apple saying - one bad apple spoils the barrel.

Let's change the gross misconduct for a second to, say, theft - if someone is found to have stolen several laptops from the office and is given little more than a slap on the wrist, and then another person steals some mobile phones and receives similar treatment then, apart from innate/thoroughly inculcated honesty and ethics, what's to stop everyone from stealing stuff with impunity? Of course you're not going to just let people steal expensive equipment and carry on in their jobs, so why is it OK to allow officers guilty of sexual crimes to do so?

Usually the biggest deterrent factor among those that already want to do something is the likelihood of getting caught and publicly outed, rather than the severity of the punishment. Obviously there needs to be a minimum level of punishment though. But a lower level of punishment sometimes means you can use a lower standard of proof (we're talking about employment consequences here, rather than criminal sanctions), which in turn increases the chances of getting caught.

Working on getting people that don't want to do the thing and a culture that doesn't tolerate the desire is, of course, better.

Yes, I agree. I was thinking more about the message that is sent that such behaviour is not particularly frowned upon, rather than the punishment aspect, though. And that's very much part of getting the culture right, I think.

If offences against property are routinely treated as sackable, while offences against the (usually female) person are treated with little more than a slap on the wrist then that gives the impression that your colleagues and superiors don't see offences against the person as that bad, so there's less worry about being found out. So it's not just a question of what the punishment is, but about whether anyone would care if they found out what you did - and as I think you're saying, that's the key thing.

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 5:04 pm

It's astonishing, or it should be, that so many police officers, of all people, have such low standards of honesty and integrity. What did they join up for? (No need to answer that.)

I suspect that a disappointingly large percentage of people who apply to become police officers, in any country, are manifestly unfit to do the job. The problem then becomes how good the organisation is at weeding them out during the application and training process. The US, for example, is clearly terrible at this. Germany and the Netherlands seem to do OK. (Don't, whatever you do, resist arrest in Belgium. )

I suspect that the tradeoffs needed are not easy. As Orwell once wrote, "men [sic] can only be highly civilized while other [sic], inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them". Whatever degree of ACAB we may subscribe to at a general level, many of us are not publicly outraged when the police beat up a few Tommy Robinson supporters on our behalf. So you need to judge whether this person in front of you is prepared to exercise force/violence against their fellow citizens on behalf of the state (cf. Max Weber's definition of a country), and only on behalf of the state. That requires quite a special psychological profile (cf the efforts of many armies throughout history to get more than half of their soldiers to fire at the enemy), and probably a lot more close ongoing supervision than most police officers receive.

Relative morality might be a factor. The police deal with appalling people day in, day out. They are on extremely high moral ground compared to criminals and need to have the paperwork to prove it. This might lead to blind spots developing (in the same way that dark humour is common for paramedics etc).

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:13 pm

It's frustrating to me that those in a position of power and often in contact with vulnerable people can get away with far greater and more harmful crimes, than someone who stole some work supplies

Don't forget that policeman who was actually sacked for underpaying for some charity tuck shop jaffa cakes by 90p

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... g-21869005

Presumably he wished he'd merely sexually assaulted someone.

Anecdata, but . . .

over the years i've spent time (usually in pubs) with friends who are police officers or ex- in forces outside London. They've all said, at different times, much the same, their forces' "bad apples" are often given the choice - the sack or apply for a transfer to the met (who'll take anyone).

If true, it would explain partly why the Met has a higher share of bad 'uns.

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:46 am

Anecdata, but . . .

over the years i've spent time (usually in pubs) with friends who are police officers or ex- in forces outside London. They've all said, at different times, much the same, their forces' "bad apples" are often given the choice - the sack or apply for a transfer to the met (who'll take anyone).

If true, it would explain partly why the Met has a higher share of bad 'uns.

Not The Nine O'Clock News's "Constable Savage" sketch — which stands up today rather better than about 90% of the material from that show — ends with Savage, who may already be in the Met, being transferred to the SPG, to his delight.

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:46 am

Anecdata, but . . .

over the years i've spent time (usually in pubs) with friends who are police officers or ex- in forces outside London. They've all said, at different times, much the same, their forces' "bad apples" are often given the choice - the sack or apply for a transfer to the met (who'll take anyone).

If true, it would explain partly why the Met has a higher share of bad 'uns.

Nicholas Angel being transferred out of the Met to Sandford because he was making the other officers 'look bad' by being good at his job doesn't seem quite so funny these days.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:39 pm

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:46 am

Anecdata, but . . .

over the years i've spent time (usually in pubs) with friends who are police officers or ex- in forces outside London. They've all said, at different times, much the same, their forces' "bad apples" are often given the choice - the sack or apply for a transfer to the met (who'll take anyone).

If true, it would explain partly why the Met has a higher share of bad 'uns.

Not The Nine O'Clock News's "Constable Savage" sketch — which stands up today rather better than about 90% of the material from that show — ends with Savage, who may already be in the Met, being transferred to the SPG, to his delight.

I have said elsewhere that Constable Savage looks like an affectionate portrait of policing in the Met

https://news.sky.com/story/cressida-dic ... n-12541947

Not sure this is going to help the Metropolitan Police Federation's image.

The Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents more than 31,000 officers in the capital, has declared it has "no faith" in London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Ken Marsh, chairman of the federation, said the atmosphere among officers was at "rock bottom" following the resignation of Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick.

They're the other side of the culture war fence, loads of people will support them.

Yeah, loads of chuds were waving pro-cop flags around in the US after they murdered George Floyd.

I get the impression history is just gonna repeat itself in the UK, from the Pizzagate paedo lies to the looting-with-impunity to the divisive stoking of anything that'll undermine working class solidarity.

PC Adnan Arib, a Met police officer has been found guilty of misconduct in a public office after contacting a 15 year old and a 16 year old girl after meeting them while he was on duty and asking them out. He will be sentenced on 3 March.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:45 pm

PC Adnan Arib, a Met police officer has been found guilty of misconduct in a public office after contacting a 15 year old and a 16 year old girl after meeting them while he was on duty and asking them out. He will be sentenced on 3 March.

Apparently he was just offering "career advice".
FFS

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:55 am

Yeah, loads of chuds were waving pro-cop flags around in the US after they murdered George Floyd.

I get the impression history is just gonna repeat itself in the UK, from the Pizzagate paedo lies to the looting-with-impunity to the divisive stoking of anything that'll undermine working class solidarity.

The problem with that is that there just isn't the same 50 years of being told that the government is coming to take away your guns, ban Christianity and put black people descended from slaves in charge in place to make it work nearly as well as it does in the US. It'll probably work about as well as the Tory attempt to stoke division over abortion did four or so years ago.

A rather disturbing thread about police officers being sacked in secret:

https://twitter.com/journokatie/status/ ... DU2AiKEqZg

egbert26 wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:54 am

A rather disturbing thread about police officers being sacked in secret:

https://twitter.com/journokatie/status/ ... DU2AiKEqZg

Just an organisation trying to avoid scrutiny nothing to see here

David Carrick, first mentioned here, was a police officer in the same police department as Wayne Couzens and in October 2021 he was charged with a rape he allegedly committed in September 2020. I'm sure you'll be absolutely shocked to discover he's been charged with a whole load more sexual offences.

From the Guardian,

A Metropolitan police officer accused of a series of sexual attacks against women has been charged with another 12 offences, bringing the total number of alleged victims to 11. David Carrick, 47, previously faced 29 charges against eight alleged victims, including rape, coercive and controlling behaviour and sexual assault. He was charged with 12 more offences on Wednesday, bringing the total number to 41, the Met and Crown Prosecution Service said.

I've failed to update this thread recently due to a combination of laziness and despair rather than a lack of content. But there's something about this case that brings back so many memories of Wayne Couzens and all the stuff we were told to do that would somehow protect us from officers trying to repeat his actions,

"She asked for his warrant card and he produced it - he kept his thumb over where his name was." The woman began Googling the powers of a special constable and information given to her by Mr Hoile, before he asked for her name, which she confirmed, the court heard. She then walked away after booking a taxi, but he followed.

He's charged with misconduct in public office, three counts of oral and anal rape, and a charge of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Of course he claims it's consensual, which is bollocks.

The officer was with a friend at the time. A friend who seems to have stood by while he raped a woman. I have no words.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:31 pm

I've failed to update this thread recently due to a combination of laziness and despair rather than a lack of content. But there's something about this case that brings back so many memories of Wayne Couzens and all the stuff we were told to do that would somehow protect us from officers trying to repeat his actions,

"She asked for his warrant card and he produced it - he kept his thumb over where his name was." The woman began Googling the powers of a special constable and information given to her by Mr Hoile, before he asked for her name, which she confirmed, the court heard. She then walked away after booking a taxi, but he followed.

He's charged with misconduct in public office, three counts of oral and anal rape, and a charge of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Of course he claims it's consensual, which is bollocks.

The officer was with a friend at the time. A friend who seems to have stood by while he raped a woman. I have no words.

Found not guilty on all counts. I also have no words. That poor woman.

gosling wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:52 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:31 pm

I've failed to update this thread recently due to a combination of laziness and despair rather than a lack of content. But there's something about this case that brings back so many memories of Wayne Couzens and all the stuff we were told to do that would somehow protect us from officers trying to repeat his actions,

"She asked for his warrant card and he produced it - he kept his thumb over where his name was." The woman began Googling the powers of a special constable and information given to her by Mr Hoile, before he asked for her name, which she confirmed, the court heard. She then walked away after booking a taxi, but he followed.

He's charged with misconduct in public office, three counts of oral and anal rape, and a charge of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Of course he claims it's consensual, which is bollocks.

The officer was with a friend at the time. A friend who seems to have stood by while he raped a woman. I have no words.

Found not guilty on all counts. I also have no words. That poor woman.

f.ck that is grim

gosling wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:52 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:31 pm

I've failed to update this thread recently due to a combination of laziness and despair rather than a lack of content. But there's something about this case that brings back so many memories of Wayne Couzens and all the stuff we were told to do that would somehow protect us from officers trying to repeat his actions,

"She asked for his warrant card and he produced it - he kept his thumb over where his name was." The woman began Googling the powers of a special constable and information given to her by Mr Hoile, before he asked for her name, which she confirmed, the court heard. She then walked away after booking a taxi, but he followed.

He's charged with misconduct in public office, three counts of oral and anal rape, and a charge of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Of course he claims it's consensual, which is bollocks.

The officer was with a friend at the time. A friend who seems to have stood by while he raped a woman. I have no words.

Found not guilty on all counts. I also have no words. That poor woman.

Holy f.ck. I'm disgusted beyond words.

I'm starting to think stop and search powers should be turned on the police. Anyone in a Met police uniform should be stopped and arrested on suspicion of rape. Think they'd have a pretty high hit rate.

Met Police officer accused of raping two women in 11 days bailed