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.

[WhirlpoolGalaxyM51]

Network is a bit rubbish at the moment so googling large documents not much fun! I'll try later.

I was just thinking about the relative worth placed on people again

And it occurred to me that an argument being put forward here, which amount to:

These are fine upstanding citizens (assumed that based on no evidence), who have made one small mistake and it is extreme to punish them for an aberration, an oversight, a moment where they didn't use their best judgement

And it occurs to me that a very similar argument is often used when defending rapists, or when deciding that even though they are guilty they shouldn't be punished too much or at all.

It's about relative worth. Unfortunately teenage girls especially ones who have been in trouble with the police, or have mental health problems, or are bunking off school or whatever it is, are deemed to have extremely low worth, which is why situations like Rochdale and Rotherham continued for years and why so many child victims in Yewtree failed to get listened to over the years and so forth. And here again we are seeing "no no you can't punish these officers, that's just not fair" even though their behaviour and the consequences of their behaviour is really serious, and that it was extremely unlikely to have been a one-off.

[WhirlpoolGalaxyM51]

TBF teenage boys with "troubled" backgrounds are also very low worth when it comes to this.

Whole thing is appalling and I for one am glad that the CPS etc have acknowledged the huge problems although I have no confidence that change will happen quickly.

[Anniegetyourgun]

TTWK didn't say "bad stuff happened in the past but it's all right now"; another poster did, though, so I assume it was a case of mistaken attribution rather than dishonest arguing.

Anyway: it is and should be different in the private sector. In a commercial business the bottom line is profit. You'd get rid of an employee in any way that's expedient and (hopefully) legal, in line with your duty to shareholders and the good of the company going forward. In the police, however, their line of business is law and order and their accountability is to the public they are supposed to be serving. The consequences of misconduct are not only harm to the victim, and criminals being free to re-offend, but also the undermining of public confidence in the police. It has not merely individual/local but national impact. This is why police officers have to be held to a higher standard than your average employee. They're only human like the rest of us, they will make mistakes no doubt, but the willful disregard of duty in cases like this is really beyond the pale, and letting them slide off quietly into retirement is just not good enough. Justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. I say justice, not vindictiveness; it should be fair and proportionate, but it must not be glossed over.

And what BathtimeFunkster said.

[WhirlpoolGalaxyM51]

this is from 2013 and talks about the situation that led to the change in the law namechange has been talking about.

Goggling "sacked officer misconduct" brings back results mainly from very recent times which shows that this change is working I think.

I have been unable to discover what the impact on finances is with sacking vs resigning vs retiring early.

Clearly though if you are sacked you are going to have much more trouble getting another job than in the other 2 cases.

Additionally if the officer manages to swerve the disciplinary process it means that there is no opportunity for the victim to see that process through and achieve some satisfaction / closure from seeing that. Depriving people of that feels wrong.

A quote from a force that recently sacked an officer: “The thoroughness of this investigation demonstrates that Thames Valley Police takes reports of misconduct extremely seriously.

“For the public to have confidence in the police they must be able to trust us and there can therefore be no place in the police for those who do not act with integrity.

“Thankfully, cases such as this are rare but I hope that the outcome sends a strong message to the public and to other police officers. The dismissal of PC Mynehan shows that there will be serious consequences for officers who are found to have been dishonest and that the public can trust Thames Valley Police to take tough action to tackle misconduct.”

Many posters on the thread wouldn't agree with the statement from the police service there and so I once again say that I am glad that the powers that be are attempting to make changes even if some in the public don't want to see them.

[TTWK]

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.

The poster concerned quoted me as saying something I had never said in order to bolster their own argument. Why should I not respond to that.

The fact that someone lied about what I'd said and I had the sheer nerve to call them out on it leads you to think that I am suggesting all women lie all the time and that's why the police acted as they did? Utterly ridiculous.

[BreakWindandFire]

Another thing that concerns me about this case is what the police actually admitted. They admitted liability for "inhuman and degrading treatment", admitted that they'd told the victim that “this is what happens when you lie” and agreed that there'd been false imprisonment and assault.

Now I assume the 'false imprisonment' relates to holding her in custody. What exactly does the assault bit relate to? Did they beat her up in the police station as a punishment for "lying"?

[PoppyShakespeare]

assault can be simply giving people reason to expect or suspect violence from you

you don't have to make contact with them or hit them (that's battery)

[BreakWindandFire]

Poppy I was wondering whether the Hants Police public statement referred to assault in the mainstream colloquial sense (they beat her up) or the technical legal definition (they threatened to beat her up, and it was a convincing threat so she was put in fear of immediate violence).

If it comes down to either they (a) smashed her face in or (b) threatened to smash her face in, neither is very good!

I agree that pensions are irrelevant, but that retiring early to avoid disciplinary action is disgraceful. But the police seem to be admitting to criminal offences in this matter, but no action appears to be forthcoming because the perpetrators are police officers.

[PoppyShakespeare]

I think (am really not sure, it's been a very long time since I learned these things) an unlawful arrest IS an assault

direct threats are something else again

[Icimoi]

Technically simply touching someone can be an assault. So arresting them is highly likely to be an assault.

[PomeralLights]

I'm still boggled by the 'the police have to question your word as a line of enquiry' argument.

A rape is similar to a stabbing, in that it is a violent assault involving penetration of the body often leading to physical injuries.

If you went to the police and said 'I was at s party last weekend and this guy Dave stabbed me, look I have my t-shirt with blood all over it as proof' would you really expect them to turn round and say 'well I don't think that happened, I'm going to arrest you for lying'. Really?!

[TTWK]

TTWK did pretty much say that all the problem were in the past:

"That's awful Blackrider. Sorry to hear that. But was this recently? Things have changed enormously over the last few years. Even if it was recently, a sample of one is hardly conclusive evidence. think in reality it doesn't happen very often at all, not these days."

The phrase "doesn't happen very often at all, not these days" is not the same as "It never happens at all and all the problems were in the past.

I also said elsewhere that things have improved greatly in recent years, but are far from perfect.

It's quite sad that people try to read their own interpretation into perfectly clear English to justify their own argument.

I see Bathtime has had one of her posts removed by the mods for making completely o.t.t. comments about me based on stuff I never even said.

[BigChocFrenzy]

Officers who make a major error in judgement should NOT be allowed To retire early, like a bad conduct reward.
Their pensions shouldn't be confiscated, but should not be paid one day earlier than if they had done their job properly. Other people who are sacked or resign have to find new jobs, often at nmw, or go on JSA.

Also, resignation should not avoid criminal charges being investigated: in this case, charges like unlawful imprisonment, assault, misconduct in public office.

I'm disgusted the woman victim was not awarded 6-figure damages for the horrific treatment by the police.

The current system is designed to save the Police Service from embarassment, officers from punishment - and to sweep rape victims under the rug.

[Binkybix]

I totally agree this was more than a mistake. They actively persecuted her. If this was a problem with resources, as one poster posited up thread, you'd have thought they wouldn't have had time to try to incorrectly prosecute her either.

[namechange264]

Officers being investigated for gross misconduct cannot now resign or retire prior to the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings except in very exceptional circumstances. The law changed in January.

Nor does retirement or resignation prevent criminal charges being considered where there is an indication that a criminal offence has been committed. Whether or not there are criminal charges is up to the CPS.

[BreakWindandFire]

A comment on the Guardian site this evening mentioned that this girl's lawyer was interviewed on the news and alleged that the police officer she reported the rape to called her a "lying n***". Did anyone else hear this?

So (possibly) a black victim, in nice white Winchester, plus Hampshire police who have the highest number of racism complaints of any UK police force, which might explain why things turned out as they did.