Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

AIBU?

police who ignored a 17 y/o girl with mental health problems when she reported a rape should not have been given the option to retire on their pensions

223 replies

agentEgypt · 22/05/2015 08:08

This is the story about Hampshire police who ignored this 17 year old girl when she tried to report a rape, and instead said they would charge her for perverting the course of justice and this made her self harm more and attempt suicide.

However she did get legal help and eventually they settled out of court. However 4 of the cops involved were given the option yo retire!

IMO they should have not been given this option, legally charged and have their entire pension removed.

OP posts:

Report

fearandloathinginambridge · 22/05/2015 08:14

Terrible. Having just watched the fantastic BBC documentary about the specialist Serious Sexual Offences Unit in Rochdale, it beggars belief that Police forces aren't sharing best practice in the investigation of rape cases.

whois · 22/05/2015 08:19

The police force protects its own above and beyond protecting the public.

giving people the option to retire had no place (in any profession) in a disciplinary process.

MissJoMarch · 22/05/2015 08:20

I would support police been sacked with equivalent of dishonourable discharge / gross misconduct.

To allow them to have early retirement serves no penalty for their lack of professional conduct & failure to follow process.

Police need training, mandatory regular training & exposure to victims. The whole legal framework (police, judiciary, SS) is sadly disassociated from every day abuse

namechange0dq8 · 22/05/2015 08:21

It's not as though the policeman who didn't retire got a meaningful sanction either, "words of advice" which means "son, don't get caught next time, that's our advice".

agentEgypt · 22/05/2015 08:50

Totally agree Jo and others. They have received no penalty for what they did and putting someone through hell.

What upsets me more is the guy on the today show defending it and the lack of outrage on this. We pay their wages and the system that allows them to do this stinks! Is the ippc that rubbish?

OP posts:

Koalafications · 22/05/2015 08:55

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this case. Is there a link?

How old are the police officers involved?

ConferencePear · 22/05/2015 09:00

Am I the only one who thinks that the £20,000 compensation she has been offered is hopelessly inadequate ?

26Point2Miles · 22/05/2015 09:03

Id like to see a link too

TTWK · 22/05/2015 09:04

OP, you honestly think that after 30 or 40 years of contributing to a pension, you should lose the lot, because you make a mistake at work! Really.

Yes, they got it badly wrong, but do you know what they've done for the last 30 years. How many dangerous situations they have faced or how many brave acts they have carried out. Maybe risked their lives to save others, on numerous occasions. Faced up rioters and soccer hooligans to protect others property.

But regardless of those possibilities, you wish to strip them of all their pension, leaving them potless in retirement.

Sounds completely over the top, and quite vindictive.

SumThucker · 22/05/2015 09:08

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3092283/Police-pay-rape-victim-20-000-arrested-did-not-believe-claims.html

Koalafications · 22/05/2015 09:12

I think it's disgraceful that they were allowed to resign or retire during the investigation. They should have been taken through the process fully.

I'm not sure what level of compensation is acceptable but I think that's more for the victim to judge based on the impact this has had on her life.

I disagree that they should have had their pensions taken away from them.

JulyKit · 22/05/2015 09:15

do you know what they've done for the last 30 years. How many dangerous situations they have faced or how many brave acts they have carried out. Maybe risked their lives to save others, on numerous occasions. Faced up rioters and soccer hooligans to protect others property.

Er, TTWK, what you've described above look to me like basic responsibilities and duties.

Why do you think that a history of carrying out basic (some) basic duties exonerates such an appalling failure to fulfill equally important duties?

Would you say the same thing about, say, a grossly negligent medical practitioner, or a teacher guilty of gross misconduct, because, you know, s/he'd done some of the required work properly?

agentEgypt · 22/05/2015 09:26

Yes I do think they should face having their pension pot slashed for gross misconduct that they are clearly guilty of!! Maybe it would keep them on their feet if they knew that their actions should have serious consequences!

Yes 20k is a joke, especially as it will just come out from tax payers and not the officers pensions that acted atrociously.

I'm very offended by people saying their pensions should still be protected even for gross misconduct as they might have done some good stuff previously!

OP posts:

TTWK · 22/05/2015 09:27

JulyKit, I think if you make a bad error at work, then if it's gross misconduct, you deserve to be sacked. But not to have your own money wrapped up in a pension that you have contributed to for decades taken off you. That's outrageous.

You could do a good job for 40 yrs, and lose all your pension that you've contributed to for all that time because of a bad error in your twilight years. How is that right.

agentEgypt · 22/05/2015 09:27

Exactly July!

OP posts:

agentEgypt · 22/05/2015 09:31

That's incredibly offensive describing the police who ignored a rape victim and tried to falsely charge her with something as a "bad error" or mistake!

OP posts:

Koalafications · 22/05/2015 09:33

I don't think they should have their pensions protected because they have done some good stuff.

I just fundamentally disagree that they should have money that they have saved taken off them just because the employer is a trustee to that money. What would be fair if 2 of the police officers involved were pension members and 2 weren't? Would only those who have saved into the pension have their savings taken off them but the other two get off free?

I think they should be held accountable for their actions. They should be sacked for what they have done.

PtolemysNeedle · 22/05/2015 09:35

I don't agree that these officers should have their pensions dismantled. They paid their own earned money into those pensions, of course they should be protected. No one has a right to take that away from them. They made a mistake, as people in all jobs do at times, it's just that people who make mistakes when they have high levels of responsibility create bigger negative consequences.

As an aside, I received outstanding support from that particular police force once, they went well above and beyond the call of duty and did their job excellently. Just wanted to say that, because they really aren't all bad.

kewtogetin · 22/05/2015 09:36

YABU and borderline hysterical. Paying into a pension for decades and then having the money removed because of an error in judgement is ridiculous. Does the case wipe out the years of 'good' policing that is behind them?
I think moving towards a state where we remove money from people who haven't done s good enough job is very dangerous indeed. What next? Fining doctors who don't diagnose cancer early enough? Removing pensions from teachers when their students don't get good enough grades?
Pensions are and should be entirely seperate in the disciplinary process.

agentEgypt · 22/05/2015 09:59

Well we will have to agree to disagree.

I think its acceptable to fine people guilty of gross misconduct and take it from their pensions.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352108/Dock-pensions-rogue-police-MPs-officers-guilty-misconduct-lose-thousands.html

Your examples are not of gross misconduct. Don't see why pensions should be untouchable for people that failed at their job and had very serious affects on other people. Like this poor woman who tried to talk her own life.

Hysterical for someone that was raped and ignored by the police. Yes I am.

OP posts:

TTWK · 22/05/2015 10:04

Absolutely spot on kewtogetin.

Can I ask what would happen to someone who didn't pay into a pension, but just took their full salary and saved in an ISA or savings account. Should we have the right to raid that money? Or if they used the money to buy a bigger house instead of saving in a pension scheme? Should we be able to kick them out of their home?

WaywardOn3 · 22/05/2015 10:12

Given how many times my aunt with mental health problems has cried rape to the police only for the police to find that she'd made up a whole relationship with a guy she's met at the pub or through mencap or even the park. Guy turns down her advances and she goes to the police as he's raped her.

It's a sad situation all round as the police have a good idea that it's all in her head but on the off chance that this time it might be real means they have to look into it.

IsabellaofFrance · 22/05/2015 10:13

While what they did was incompetent and damaging, I don't agree that the money they have saved into a pension pot should be removed.

If this was a private sector employee, who had done something of this magnitude, they would be shone the door, but would not be subject to any type of civil fine, which is what this equates too.

WaywardOn3 · 22/05/2015 10:16

my aunt creates a lot of extra work for our local police and I'm forever thankful that they'll investigate her complaints and not just ignore them :-)

kali110 · 22/05/2015 10:16

Agree with PtolemysNeedle

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.