Women must resist arrest by any male police officer and demand the presence of a policewoman

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Pumperthepumper
So why didn’t they?
Because you can’t investigate something before it happens?

Why did nobody stop him?
Because no one had any idea he was planning rape and murder?[/quote]
But something had happened! He was creepy around women - why was he still a serving Met police officer? And we’re still assuming they didn’t know about the indecent assault. Surely if they’re as well trained to spot criminals, it would have been very obvious?

@Pumperthepumper
So why didn’t they?
Because you can’t investigate something before it happens?

Why did nobody stop him?
Because no one had any idea he was planning rape and murder?

We haven't got the numbers to be double crewed
We haven't got the numbers to attend the emergency calls - let alone the non-emergency ones

We haven't got the numbers to ask for assistance half the time

“Even if a more senior officer was unaware of all the different issues, that is actually further evidence of a massive issue with the culture of the police. Where managers have no clue what their officers are doing, and rank and file officers protect each other from sanction. You can't just shrug and say that it's reasonable that no one had any awareness of what was going on, as if that makes the state of the Met police any better.”

It’s definitely evidence of an information sharing problem, which could be due to lack of resources, stretched for time, or antiquated records keeping system, so not necessarily a culture problem. Im not saying failures to disseminate information is reasonable, or that the Met police don’t need to improve. I am saying that the other police individuals within an organisation that doesn’t share information efficiently cannot be held responsible for one of their colleagues committing rape and murder.

Apologies if these stats have been posted - I haven't read the whole thread. From The Telegraph:

'Between 2019 and 2020, 160 officers in the Met alone have been accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment and other forms of sexual misconduct. Only four people have been either “suspended or restricted” as a result. A Freedom of Information request earlier this month found that in the four years to 2020, more than half of Met officers found guilty of sexual misconduct have kept their jobs.'

'Meanwhile, one woman every week is coming forward to report domestic abuse by a police officer. At least 15 women – the majority of them domestic violence victims – have been killed by police officers in the past 12 years, while the conviction rates for police officers who abuse their partners are almost half the national average. In April it was revealed that the Met was investigating an officer for raping two of his colleagues an astonishing three years after the allegations were reported. He had not even been suspended.'

Would a better system not be ‘he’s creepy around women therefore he can’t be a police officer’?

@Pumperthepumper. Well yes and you can get a feel for creepy by doing psych assessments of police officer trainees and annually for police officers on the force.

I am sure Met police will do full investigation into who knew what and when, and then put in place better information sharing between supervisors and others responsible for ensuring police officers are safe around women. If anyone did know everything we know now, and did nothing, then yes they should be sacked too.

There were two separate allegations of indecent exposure specifically against WC a few days before the murder. There are at least two police officers (rank unknown) who are being investigated for misconduct for not investigating those.

Even if a more senior officer was unaware of all the different issues, that is actually further evidence of a massive issue with the culture of the police. Where managers have no clue what their officers are doing, and rank and file officers protect each other from sanction. You can't just shrug and say that it's reasonable that no one had any awareness of what was going on, as if that makes the state of the Met police any better.

I've a feeling that more than one officer is required to transport a prisoner anyway (unless there's a cage in the back like the vans and some cars have), so that there's no risk of the prisoner distracting the driver.

This murder didn't involve a uniformed officer, it didn't involve a marked car.

Is it usual for a lone police man or woman to arrest someone AND put them in a police car, without calling for back up?

But they did know he was creepy towards women, hence the nickname his colleagues gave him. Would a better system not be ‘he’s creepy around women therefore he can’t be a police officer’?

“At what point should the actual Metropolitan Police force, trained to spot criminals, have decided there were enough reasons to report him?”

You’re assuming that the people around him...other police officers and his superiors had all the information we have now when they probably did not. I don’t think that even one person in management there knew he had been accused of indecent exposure, had that nickname and enjoyed violent porn. All of that has come out in the investigation which happened AFTER Sarah’s murder. That’s why I say we have to be careful about hindsight what we know and not assume that this same information was widely known before he murdered Sarah.

And closer attention needs to be paid to red flags to help save lives.

At what point should the actual Metropolitan Police force, trained to spot criminals, have decided there were enough reasons to report him?

Single patrols are dangerous for everyone involved. This case exemplifies that. We should all refuse, men or women, if there are not two officers until the law is changed.

Perhaps they could have fucking investigated it? And suspended him.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10045531/Sarah-Everard-murder-Police-watchdog-boss-not-approach-lone-policeman-night.html

But not worth acting on? You think this needed hindsight to see?

Yes worth acting on, but easier to see in hindsight.

Ffs. The indecent exposure was not a red flag because it's a concrete indicator that this person was not fit to be a police officer. Action should have been taken right then. No benefit of hindsight needed. The fact it was barely an issue for this man clearly indicates to me a massive fucking problem with the Met police.

I’m not denying that there were red flags or missed opportunities, there were. Which is why the police need an overhaul.

However, I do not blame the police for the actions of WC. He acted alone and he alone is responsible for his crimes.

No, I think it is a red flag. But they are always much easier to see in hindsight than at the time, which is also true.

What is there to see 'in hindsight'? You work for the police. You work with a man that you and everyone else calls 'The Rapist' presumably because he displays predatory behaviour. What 'hindsight' is needed?

@AssassinatedBeauty
Indecent exposure is also a red flag.
Anything that indicates a warning of something worse might happen is a red flag. Obviously, it’s not a red flag for more indecent exposure, but it is a red flag for rape and murder.