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

[agentEgypt]

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.

I don't want to comment on this particular case or the issue of pensions.

But I thought I would reiterate that the change in law has now happened. It's been in force since January. Officers facing gross misconduct investigations cannot now retire or resign without the consent of the Chief Officer and that can only be given in very limited circumstances.

I should also say that an assessment is made quite early on in an investigation as to whether the conduct alleged if proved would amount to gross misconduct. The subsequent detailed investigation might then conclude that it was misconduct rather than gross misconduct or that there was a performance as opposed to conduct issue. The line between poor performance and deliberate misconduct can be hard to draw.

The police complaints system is very very complicated. It shouldn't be and it should be much easier to acess and much more transparent. There has been a consultation on reform recently. Hopefully some of those reforms will come about.

I think the victim was treated appallingly however, I don't agree with removing the pensions of the officers who made the initial decision. Equally, I don't think they should be allowed to leave and take early retirement - in these instances where officers choose to leave the force rather than see out a disciplinary investigation and hearing etc, they should have to wait until whatever age the pension is due to pay out under normal circumstances.

they should have to wait until whatever age the pension is due to pay out under normal circumstances.

And no further benefits should accrue during that time.

Their pension should be frozen and no buying of missing years of service allowed.

Pensions are pensions. They shouldn't be used as a way to create justice/ punishment.

That's what the judicial system is for.

It would have been better to have followed through with the investigation and then sacked the officers or taken them to trial if they had committed a crime.

However, if the officers were suspended on full pay whilst investigation continued, had 5 years of service left etc then they have been penalised financially by (I imagine) forced early retirement.

I don't give a shit about pensions. I just don't want rape victims to e treated like they are manipulative little liars from the outset. I want them treated like human beings basically

namechange thank you for your posts on this thread they are encouraging.

It's good to see that in this case certain parties with power to do with these authorities are acting in what I see as a positive way.

We shouldn't forget that the Met, the biggest force in the country, has a list as long as your arm of actions over the years ranging from bad practice, negligence and criminality, and with adverse consequences for the most enormous range of people. People who unquestioningly support institutions, I don't understand them TBH, especially when said institutions are being held to account publicly and being forced to reveal their wrongdoings, repeatedly.

A pp queried why criminal charges weren't brought against the officers.

As I've said I don't know the details of this case but generally speaking if criminality is indicated - which is a low threshold - (e.g. Gross negligence manslaughter or misconduct in public office) then the investigation report will be submitted to the CPS who make the decision whether to charge or not. That decision will be based on the prospects of success (I. e. the strength of the evidence) and on the public interest. The level of misconduct required to prove a charge of MIPO for example is quite high.

TTWK I'm assuming you're employed by the police in some capacity?

I can't think why else you'd be so keen to insist that everything is now rosy and all that bad stuff happened in 'the past'.

The analogy with the Catholic church is very apt - another large organisation, generally run by men, mainly employing men, protecting their own and to hell with the victims, whether they be victims of abuse or of crime that they 'decide' they can't be arsed to investigate.

If you are a serving officer your mindset is actually quite frightening. It would make me wonder what sort of a reception I'd get if I ever had to report a sexual assault/rape.

As for straighttothepoint, I can't even... can I point you at the MN "We Believe You" campaign?

In Jan 2013 the Ministry of Justice released figures stating there were on average 85,000 reports* of rape a year and 400,000 reports of sexual assault in 2012 ( www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england---wales/december-2012/index.html ).

*rape is a vastly under reported crime, for reasons much like the attitudes displayed here and elsewhere to the victims.

In a similar period of time there were approximately 35 prosecutions for false allegations of rape ( www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/13/rape-investigations-belief-false-accusations ).

Out of c. 3.2million car insurance claims in 2011 there were 138,814 fraudulent claims ( www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Publications/Public/Migrated/Facts%20and%20figures%20data/UK%20Insurance%20Key%20Facts%202012.ashx) .

Yet if you had your car stolen or damaged, the people around you and the police investigating the matter wouldn’t immediately assume you must be ‘crying car theft’.

It’s only where women and sexual offences are concerned that there’s this massive disconnect and it’s considered okay to doubt their word. We have to start asking why that is, and I fear the uncomfortable truth is that our society is so invested in protecting the rights of men that women are seen - quite unconsciously by most of us as it's so deeply ingrained - as somehow lesser, of not quite being deserving of our belief and protection.

TTWK - I really take issue with your point of 'well private companies do it too, so it's ok'. Smacks of a race to the bottom mentality.

We should hold our public services to a higher standard than private companies, not be justifying shitness based on the greedy cowardly behaviour of big company CEOs.

Maybe I'm jaded by my years working as a Big 4 auditor but I wouldn't want the behaviours or opinions of most of the FTSE100 CEOs anywhere near the attitude I expect from the police.

FWIW I agree with Bath too

I have known people dismissed from private sector companies for gross misconduct (although not many - hence my shock at the numbers stated in the item upthread).

It's not true at all that it doesn't happen.

And yes an organisation like the police needs to be held to a higher standard of ethics and behaviour and so forth, and the people within that organisation should be fully accountable for their actions, and everything should be carried out in a transparent fashion. We are very very far from there at the moment.

TTWK I'm assuming you're employed by the police in some capacity?

Wrong. But I have had some experience of the legal position trying to get rid of longstanding employees, and it is very difficult, regardless of what they've done. Somethimes the pragmaric solution is better in the long term than the emotional response.

I can't think why else you'd be so keen to insist that everything is now rosy and all that bad stuff happened in 'the past'.

I have never said that. Why are you lying to back up your case? I have said that things are generally much better than they used to be, but far from perfect.

The analogy with the Catholic church is very apt - another large organisation, generally run by men, mainly employing men, protecting their own and to hell with the victims, whether they be victims of abuse or of crime that they 'decide' they can't be arsed to investigate.

That's as maybe, but the point Bathtime was making was that I was in some way a supporter of that. Where's the evidence for that assertion?

And again I come back to Shoesmith. Everyone calling for her head, and they got what they wanted. And it cost £650K in compo. That's why you have to act with extreme caution when you sack longstanding staff.

Shoesmith was nothing like this.

She was fired by a politician for political gain.

Of course she was compensated. What was done to her was outrageous.

Unless you are trying to claim that these officers were not, in fact, to blame for their attempts to jail a 17 year old rape victim?

scapegoating one not blameworthy individual for the failings of many is not really analogous to exculpating a few individuals from their own indefensible conduct

TTWK I agree that pension confiscation shouldn't be used as some arbitrary punishment.

I also agree that suspension without pay during an investigation is a punishment before a trial takes place.

You say that investigation should be dealt with in accordance with their service records. -why?
The obvious (if probably far too blunt to make a point is)
I work in IT, and take care of some systems used by banks holding credit card numbers, would years of not committing a crime be excused if I stole a credit card number from a database and went on a spending spree?

(It's a bit blunt as it involved a criminal offence, but do you see the point?) what the officers did cannot be justified by previous great service. (Not least because people who are actually great don't tend to get quite so terrible quite so fast, I would doubt that this is an isolated incident if poor work coming from those concerned.)

You say that investigation should be dealt with in accordance with their service records. -why?

Again, I never said that. I said that when you are deciding how best to get rid of a long standing employee who you wish to get rid of, their previous record of employment has to be looked at, because if you end up being sued for unfair dismissal, it'll sure as hell be relevant at a tribunal.

That's why many organisations, private and public, so often opt for the early retirement option rather than the dismissal option. Because although it goes against the grain to let people go without punishment, pragmatically it is the safest and quickest way to get shot of them.

Also, re the comparisons with the catholic child abuse scandal, there is one slight difference, and that is it was priests that were doing the raping. People may have forgotten that the police never actually raped this girl.

In all the anger about their failure to investigate properly, the rapist himself seems to have been absolved of any blame for her distress and suicide attempts. Does he have to shoulder any of the blame in this case?

Shoesmith is entirely relevant. She was sacked on a tide of public outrage, emotion and anger. Ed Balls was a coward who pandered to public opinion. And look how it ended up!i

In disbelieving her and attempting to prosecute her for reporting her rape, they violated her all over again.

They had a duty of care to a young girl, and instead they used their power over her situation to victimise her.

They didn't just refuse to investigate her report of rape. They took steps to harm her. And they did harm her. Significantly.

But it's great for other police officers to know that if they abuse their power over teenagers that it will be "too complicated" to take any steps against them, and instead they will be handsomely rewarded for the behaviour.

This is what you said TTWK:

"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."

In the light of which, the comments of notauniquename and others seem quite reasonable. Your post just now outlining your position and justification for it has nothing to do with your initial post on the thread.

Above you accused people who wanted to see these officers face punishment as "vindictive" and you have said that people shouldn't feel strongly about this (the word used was "hysterical") and that if people do feel strongly basically their ideas about whether the officers should be punished is invalid.

You have also described what these officers did as a "bad error" which feels like underplaying it somewhat.

You see you are going to get a lot of people responding quite strongly to posts / messages like that.

Oh and just noticed you have accused a poster of being a liar. Because women do tend to lie about all sorts of stuff all the time, right? The officers in this case can't really be blamed for taking that approach, given that.

Oh given that you won't comment on whether you think these officers should be punished and how (short of saying that early retirement is a pragmatic solution), are you going to give your view on the other question, around what you think of the new rules about police officers not being allowed to resign or take early retirement while they are under investigation, except in exceptional circumstances?

they have been punished there employment has been terminated what more do you want they are not going to get another job with the police so all there career experence is nearly useless.

If they were in a private company the same result would of happened they would walk away.

Is it just because they are policemen you want vindictive punishments to happen beyond what a court of law would impose (there is doubtful evidcne of law being broken otherwise they would be facing legal procecceding)

So basically you want the policemen in this case to be slapped with a massive fine (500k + fine btw far exceeds the amount any court of law in the land will hit a single person with) which is basically what the pension pot is and you are suggesting none court enties should have the right to slap massive fines onto people above the level that any court would

if so thats a very very slippier slope you are following suggesting companies can get out of paying pension pot for gross misconduct claims (I know of loads of companies that would take advantage of this)

So in the end they have been punished they have effectively lost their jobs as they would of done in ANY COMPANY in the country but apprently that is not enough and you are calling for them all to be have an massively over the top fine that has no legal standing what so ever but which would open the flood gates to other companies attempting the same.

So i repear yes they should of faced the displine process but the end result would of been the same loss of employment there is no other punishement they can recive unless they broke the law if that is the case they should be prosicuted

BUT NO THEY DO NOT DESIVE A WHOOPING MASSIVE FINE of upto half a million pounds (if not more if they live along time) because only a court of law should have that power not just the company / employer

Yes, choosing to take early retirement to avoid any disciplinary procudure is such an awful punishment.

Poor them.

Women are so vindictive the way they think people should be punished for harming them.

Outrageous!

Is it not enough that these poor sods face a lifetime of golfing and foreign holidays purgatory?

no i am not saying early retirment is a punishment I am saying if they were fired the same result would of happened they would of lost there employment (which they have done)

So what else should happen they have been punished they have lost their jobs what more would of happened if they were a private company? I can tell you nothing.

but you people seem to thinking losing their employment is not a punishment? do you really think they are going to get a reference from the police for another job? really so in effect they (if they have been with the police a long time) would basically mean they are unemployable because would you employ someone that could not provide a good reference? I thought not

Is that not enough of a punishment for you? would you like it to be called fired instead of forced retirement? becuase in effect its the same god damn thing losing their pensions is on top of everything else IS EXCESSIVE and rightly is not on the table

i seriously seriously don't give a shit about pensions. there is a young woman here who has had her life torn to shreds by a rapist and then by the police and justice system who trampled all over the pieces. the individuals involved should have had full disciplinary proceedings with meaningful outcomes. i don't care about whether that involves pensions or not, or how legal or not that is, it's a fucking pointless argument. i just want victims of rape and other sexual violence to receive the justice they deserve and the police to (finally) learn from this case.

I want justice for victims of sexual violence as well.

But I do not see this as mutually exculisve to keeping within what is legal and just and not excessive. (thinking of certian arab states where you steal you can lose your hand) or massive over the top fines or punishments

otherwise it is not justice but vengange

Justice and people receiving no punishment at all for serious wrongdoing are mutually exclusive.

Being allowed to retire early (on what terms?) from a job where you can retire on a full (very generous) pension after 30 years is more like a reward than any kind of punishment.

No-one has suggested that the police officers involved be physically mutilated

And it's not the same as being sacked at all.

I am not sure what the punishment is for police found guilty of gross misconduct (which these officers have dodged and are now drawing regular (full?) pensions) I will look it up.