to think a serving police officer should not have a conviction for D V

[glasgowsteven]

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/cop-jailed-beating-wife-gets-2974444

Self explanatory really

100k in wages, still entitled to a pension, and in law, still a police officer

Out of the fair few coppers I've known, a couple have been lovely but the rest have been very unpleasant characters that nobody in their right mind would want anything to do with. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

My cousin was married to a police officer who beat her up.

Some of them of great, some are thugs with the law on their side.

I I agree I used to work in a job where a large proportion of the security staff wete ex-military or ex-coppers. A handful of the ex-coppers were nice blokes, but a large number were thuggish, boorish bullies and used to strut about the place with a messiah complex. God knows what they were they were like wbrn yhey actually had any power to abuse rather than being tinpot security guards.

Official reported figures suggest that 1 in 4 women are abused by their partners at some point in their lives.

Many incidences of DV however are never reported, so the general feeling is that it's more likely to be 1 in 3 women.

(1 in 8 men btw, guessing the real statistic there is higher too)

If 1 in 3 women are abused by their partners, that means I in 3 MEN are abusing their partners.

So more common than you think.

We have to make sure that there's not stereotyping or filter applied to who we think are abusers.

They could be anyone, they could be anywhere, and holding any number of position, from unemployed cocklodger, to high court judge.

Certain professions will attract some people with specific personalities, for their own reasons/benefit, rather than for the civic duty.

Every last conviction for DV is a good one. They all count, and maybe one day DV won't be tolerated in society. Those 1 in 3 will however keep fighting for their entitlement to abuse, dominate and manipulate.

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest - there is a reason they are drawn to the job.

As an ex substance misuse worker I used to support a lot of coppers quite a few had been perpetrators of domestic abuse and some even drinking on the job (inc drivers).

Seriously? The reason they are drawn to the job?

My husband is a cop. He was drawn to the job because he wants to do some good. He used to work in the city, sitting on his arse doing accounts. Now he gets up at 5am to start at 6am, and he goes in to get abuse from the arseholes he deals with. Even the victims are sometimes arseholes. He never, ever complains. He works fucking hard and has to deal with some God awful things.

Then he comes home, with kisses and hugs for me and the DSs. No abuse. Ever.

As an aside, I'm not that clued up on the pension stuff but DH pays about £300 a month into his pension, which I believe is compulsory. So, shouldn't the man in the article above be entitled to that part of his pension?

And in no way am I condoning what he did. He should not be allowed to keep his job. No way. I am just sticking up for decent police officers.

Peaz, I hope you don't think I said that police in general were abusers drawn to the job, because I didn't say that.

There ARE however some professions that due to the respect the role commands, the rule enforcer aspect, will feed the needs of some dysfunctional people.

I dare say your DH might know some officers that are agressive/angry/controlling. I have given talks to Army Officers so that they can try to understand what signs of DV are.

By their own admission, the qualities of an abusive personality can be taken as signs of a good soldier.. :(
But as an organisation, the armed forces are trying to have the good officers without supporting the potential for RL repercussions for their partners/children.

1 in 3 means that there are abusers in every walk of life, every class, every level.

1 in 3 means too thought that our efforts to rid society of abuse isn't always as easy as we need it to be.

I live in Hampshire. We're lucky that our force is one of the best forces trained for dealing with DV. Things are getting better. Long way to go still though.

From reading the article, he won;t be having public contacts. That would be unsustainable. The reasons for re-instatement should be made clear (and the article does nothing to illuminate that), but in the mean time he'll be doing some desk-based job. As wrong as that is.

Hissy... No, I was referring to the poster above my post.

I think saying 1 in 3 men are a users is wrong. 1 in 3 women are abused at some point but I suspect it is the same men doing the abusing over and over.

So if an abuser abuses 3 women on average over their lifetime (number pulled out of thin air) then only 1 in 9 is an abuser.

Still a lot but not quite as bad as 1 in 3 (which makes me want to stick my head in the oven!)

Now he gets up at 5am to start at 6am, and he goes in to get abuse from the arseholes he deals with. Even the victims are sometimes arseholes.

Nice way to talk about a cross section of society.

Is that what your husband tells you? Do you think that is what he does every day?

Are those arsehole victims women who have been beaten by any chance?

I'm sure I've read something that says police officers are higher statistically to be abusers and other domineering professions are more likely to attract those who like controlling others.

Also teachers are most likely to shag around.

pan it says he's suspended on full pay.

I'm guessing he was reinstated as he had a valid reason for not attending the disciplinary hearing and that the disciplinary will now be rescheduled and then he'll be sacked...

No idea why he's been suspended for so long though

1 in 3 women have experienced domestic abuse by their partners? That's quite scary if it's true. Anyone got links to this because I suspect the figures are not as high as this.

As for police officers, blimey, I've always had decent experiences. They've always been polite and exercised common sense it then I've never really been in trouble.

But people will often behave differently at work from when they are at home.

A police officer with any conviction should have their ability to work looked at.

The article is of course misleading
According to the article he is off sick and didn't turn up to the disciplinary hearing and sacked in his absence.It sounds as though a procedural error was made , but next time I am sure they will 'dot the I s and cross the Ts'

The police force have not chosen to reinstate him, he was resinstated by the decision makers (not sure who they are, but seperste) and the police force have chosen to keep him suspended, but they are forced to do so with full pay.

Such an awful situation, but not of the police forces making.

the DV figures get kicked around fairly freely and differing studies have differing survey questions eg does emotional abuse count and how does one define it?

thanks Future - yes hopefully they get the sacking right 2nd time.

If 1 in 3 women are abused by their partners, that means I in 3 MEN are abusing their partners.

I agree with Mumoftwoyoungkids, this is incorrect. I imagine the statistic is actually 1 in 3 women have been abused by their partners, and there will be double counting of abusers and also I guess not all partners are men.

I don't think serving police officers should have convictions for any serious offences tbh.

Nice to know that so many of you think that my DH and I are domineering thugs with abusive personalities.

Police officers are a cross section of society. But, like society the majority will be decent hardworking kind people. It is a bizarre story, but that's why it made the news! I'm as certain as I can be without the facts that he will ultimately be fired. Then he won't get a full pension. I've had bad treatment at the hands of all kinds of professions but I don't assume they will all be the same?! The men and women I work with bend over backwards to help the community and yes sometimes that community is not grateful and can often be incredibly hostile, sometimes before you open your mouth. But that's the norm and with a shrug we get on with it.

Also the police service has changed massively in recent years. I was a police officer in the bad old days of the 1980s. Ashes To Ashes series was a terribly reminder of how things were,and much worse. I have professional contacts with young coppers these days and when it arises from time to time they are open-mouthed a bit at the stuff that happened, and when they hear of it from older colleagues.
This case reads like a procedural anomaly which the newspaper has mis-cast.

Hmmm...I don't think the Police are a cross section of society, a large proportion of those I have net are of authoritarian my way or the highway thugs with egos to match. I really think that the uniform and the chance to wield tiny amounts of power can attract a particular type of person.

Whilst this is not the totality of my experience with coppers and ex-coppers, I do seem to encounter similar personality types again and again.

I think the post from the copper's wife that states that her husband considers some of the people he is supposed to protect and pay their wages as 'arseholes' is telling.

ShineyBlacknose please don't be daft!

But please understand that there are rotten apples in every walk of life, and if they happen to wear a uniform many people will think that one equals all.

They are wrong of course, as well you know.