Page 25 of 25

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:39 pm
by Lily
Livilla wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 5:09 pm
Turtle Bean wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:11 pm My best friend from uni is in the police. I must ask her what she thinks. I've noticed in the past that she has a high tolerance for sexist bullshit which makes me wonder what she puts up with on a daily basis.
One of my good work friends used to be a DI in the Met. I honestly think some of the horrific things she had to deal with in that job desensitised her so much to normal dynamics that her perceptions were a bit skewed. “Did anyone die? If not, it’s okay” was kind of her mantra, but sometimes behaviour that is nowhere near meeting that criteria is definitely not okay, and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Does she talk about it now? I'd be interested in her views.

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:28 am
by overthehill
Marth wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:53 pm I don't think he would have needed to. They are there in plain sight. They always were.
Not related to this case but, talking with R, last night. He had several stories of officers who should never have made it through probation, but their colleagues never grassed them up to senior officers - and, if they did, nothing got done. One example was when two relatively new PCs were in the process of arresting a man for being drunk and disorderly. As they were dealing with him, another officer from the neighbouring borough, weighed in and punched him in the face. The two original officers got the situation under control and brought the drunk into the station, where R was OIC. They complained about the other officer and R told them that they needed to be prepared to write statements and follow through with any prosecution. They did, and the officer was jailed for 28 days and sacked. Here's the thing, though. When news got back to his colleagues in the neighbouring borough, the consensus was, "Good. We're surprised it took so long." They all knew what he was like and that he was a liability, but no one did anything about it.

R said that the main problem was/is that senior officers were afraid to do their jobs when it came to discipline. R got such a reputation for getting rid of the dross that, at one point, he had to complain that he hadn't a single competent PC on his relief. His boss admitted that it was deliberate, because R was practically the only one who they knew would have no qualms about sacking the bad apples. R says it's got much worse, since they introduced 'direct entry', meaning senior officers don't have to have police experience before being appointed to managerial roles.

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:56 am
by Lily
We had a policeman in yesterday. He said that his vetting has taken about 8 months (he's in security) but obviously they aren't able to vet everyone so thoroughly, and at the wages police get (starting on £19k in London, where he was) they were really scraping the barrel and not necessarily getting the calibre of people you want in a police force. He also said that it is v unusual for someone to move around so many forces, so it's obvious something was wrong with Couzens but like you say OTH nobody did anything about it.

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:45 pm
by overthehill
Lily wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:56 am We had a policeman in yesterday. He said that his vetting has taken about 8 months (he's in security) ...
Same when R retired (with the rank of Acting Chief Inspector), he applied for and got a job with met police civil staff in April 2003. It took an email to an Assistant Commissioner in 2004 before his vetting finally came through.

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:29 am
by Lily
Blimey - but that's how it should be, presuming that it was done thoroughly and not that people were slow coaches.

A friend who has worked with a lot of police forces and has a nephew in the Met said yesterday that it is a law unto itself and the MacPherson Report was just the tip of one of many icebergs. Perhaps this is why Couzens was able to get away with more and more there; nobody cared.

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:53 pm
by purple_dress
Wow this just gets worse and worse: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58883628

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 7:32 pm
by Kenickie
It's totally depressing and infuriating but sadly not surprising.

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2021 7:39 pm
by baargain
So unsurprising. I saw a news story about a friend saying he had a "14 year old girlfriend" when he was 23. So raping a teenager. Repeatedly. There will have been red flags (and crimes) all over the fucking shop for fucking years.

Re: Sarah Everard

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:56 am
by Lily
I've been speaking to a friend who was going through Sandhurst - her dream since she was 12 - when one of the other recruits (or whatevers) tried to assault her in her room. She managed to fight him off and run to her boyfriend's room. This was reported, but M did not feel well supported and eventually dropped out. Sandhurst have given her a year to come back to them and continue the training but in the meantime this man got moved to a different troop - and that's it. He not only passed through Sandhurst, he actually got an award for something or other. He's now gone back to his own country, an officer, and a man capable of rape.

The police said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, which I get - and I get that there was nothing concrete - but for him to be to get off scot free just blows my mind. Like you don't say racist things just because you're drunk, you don't try to rape someone just because you're drunk. It is part of who you are and he has received no punishment for it at all. In fact, it mattered so little he actually was picked out for an award.